The Brief Writer

Steven Sadow, a criminal defense lawyer who represents white-collar defendants in federal litigation, writes that the recent Supreme Court case of United States v. Gall opens the door for more trials and less dracronian sentences for white-collar defendants.  You may read his article here.

The Supreme Court's Cunningham case has put judge-found facts in sentencing front-and-center once again. While many defense attorneys are now arguing that sentencing enhancements should be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, it may be that the Supreme Court is going to follow another line of thought. As it has held to the Apprendi's holding with discretionary sentencing in place (Cunningham), the better argument might be that all factual considerations must fall below the Apprendi statutory maximum. Consequently, any sentencing enhancement that increases the sentence beyond the Apprendi statutory maximum would be constitutionally unreasonable.

Until the Supreme Court definitively rules on the issue, this appears to be the best argument against a long sentence going into appeal.