Scathing Dissent Assails Guidelineitis

Ok, so it's another case from outside of the Tenth Circuit, but the dissent in United States v. Sedore is a must read. Judge Merritt of the Sixth Circuit skewers the "guidelineitis" of the federal system, defining the term as "the inability of most federal courts to break their habit of mechanically relying just on the guidelines alone." Thankfully, his criticism of the guideline-centric federal regime does not end there.

Judge Merritt labels the sentencing process as a "disingenuous process" that is "completely inconsistent with the Blakely and Booker opinions." He further comments that courts have failed to faithfully apply the holdings of Booker and Blakely, noting that it is clear "that the district courts and the courts of appeals ... are not applying [Blakely] and do not believe the Supreme Court actually intends to enforce it."

For the most part, Judge Merritt's dissent offers a frank assessment of the sad realities of post-Booker federal sentencing, a reality about which defense practitioners and their clients are likely already aware. The old adage that 'the more things change, the more they stay the same' has felt appropriate for the past few years of the post-Booker regime. What was initially hailed as a breakthrough for defendants and a re-affirmation of the oft-ignored Sixth Amendment rights has regressed to the status quo ante. If there is a glimmer of hope in the current sentencing malaise, it will come from dissents like Judge Merritt's, which rightly bemoans the sorry state of affairs. Sure, Gall and Kimbrough have provided some hope, but the rumors of the Guidelines' demise have been greatly exaggerated.