Permission to Skip to the Chase

In United States v. Booker, the Supreme Court held that the mandatory federal sentencing guidelines violated a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury. As a remedy, the Court excised the statutory provision, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(b), requiring the district court to impose a sentence within the guideline range, thereby rendering the guidelines effectively advisory. Under Booker‘s advisory guideline regime, district courts must still calculate and consider the guidelines, but are free to impose a reasonable sentence above or below the range based on the other sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

So, sentencing is now a two-step process. (In some circuits, it’s three steps, but let that pass.) The court must first calculate the guideline range, just as it did before Booker, and then at step two determine an appropriate sentence in light of all the statutory factors.

But guideline calculations can be quite complex. The Guidelines Manual approaches 600 pages, and studies have shown that, depending on who is doing the calculating, the same set of facts can produce divergent guideline ranges. (See Professor O’Hear’s article, “The Myth of Uniformity,” 17 Fed. Sent. Rep. 249, for more on this.) Must the court, post-Booker, still resolve all disputed guideline issues, even though it has settled on an appropriate sentence under the statutory factors? Last week, in United States v. Sanner, the Seventh Circuit addressed this question.

Continue ReadingPermission to Skip to the Chase

Eastern District of Wisconsin Bar Association Presents Awards to Michael O’Hear and Tom Shriner

 Warm congratulations to our colleague, Professor Michael M. O’Hear, who recently received the Judge Robert W. Warren Public Service Award, at a ceremony during the Eastern District of Wisconsin Bar Association’s annual meeting. It was a pleasure for a number of us to attend and see Michael receive well-deserved recognition for his service. As Nathan Fishbach, of Whyte Hirschboeck Dudek, noted in making the presentation, Michael is “a distinguished academician whose mission is to analyze and explain the dynamics of the sentencing process.” Indeed, Michael has become a national leader in the study and discussions concerning sentencing, and he has been active in this community as well. 

At the same ceremony, the Eastern District presented its Judge Myron L. Gordon Lifetime Achievement Award to Foley & Lardner’s Thomas L. Shriner, Jr., an Indiana University law graduate and well-known Milwaukee litigator (and adjunct professor of law here at Marquette). The citation accompanying the award, written by Bill Mulligan, L’60, and Dean Joseph D. Kearney, concluded with the observation that Tom is “respected and admired for his prodigious knowledge of the law, great wit, smile, and willingness to help others.”  Congratulations as well to Tom.

The full citations can be found here concerning Michael and here concerning Tom.

 

Continue ReadingEastern District of Wisconsin Bar Association Presents Awards to Michael O’Hear and Tom Shriner

Dahmer and the Insanity Defense

Greg O’Meara has a new article on SSRN about the trial of Jeffrey Dahmer, “He Speaks Not, Yet He Says Everything; What of That?”  Text, Context, and Pretext in State v. Jeffrey Dahmer.  As part of the prosecution team in Dahmer, Greg has a unique perspective on the trial.  In dissecting the strategies used by both sides in litigating Dahmer’s sanity, Greg draws on a treasure trove of documents from the prosecution’s case file, as well as the work of Sigmund Freud, Paul Ricoeur, and others.  This paper is sure to become an indispensible resource for anyone studying the Dahmer case in the future.  Here is the abstract:

In State v. Dahmer, the defense attempted to lead the jury through a series of inferences to conclude that the defendant was insane at the time he committed each of the fifteen murders charged; it portrayed a client who was fully cooperative and honest once the authorities arrested him. To make this approach work, the defense needed narrative distance between the defendant and the jury so he could not be cross examined about his meticulous planning of each murder or his prior inconsistent statements. This paper briefly lays out the development of the defense of insanity, focusing on the different professional aims of law and psychiatry. It then fleshes out how this tension emerged during the Dahmer trial and analyzes how the attorneys attempted to exploit it in terms of Paul Ricoeur’s narrative theory. It concludes that the defense was ultimately unsuccessful because it failed to give the jury an adequate context for understanding a life both as ordinary and complex as Dahmer’s.

Continue ReadingDahmer and the Insanity Defense
Newer Posts
Older Posts