The Lost Side of Apprendi: Jury Trials, Judicial Discretion, and Making the Case for Sholom Rubashkin

The path of constitutional sentencing law is riddled with detours. In the United States Supreme Court's landmark Apprendi decision, the Court created the current doctrine of constitutional sentencing. Addressing the issue of whether a judge's finding of extra-verdict facts would result in a deprivation of a defendant's Sixth Amendment Jury Trial right, the Court adopted a ruling that said; 'Other than the fact of the prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum, must be submitted to a jury, and proven beyond a reasonable doubt'. Following Apprendi, the Court began defining how the Jury Trial right is to be applied to sentencing facts, in a series of cases known as the Apprendi line of cases. However, since then, the Court's sentencing jurisprudence has focused on the issue of whether a defendant's sentence satisfied the standard of review on appeal.