I will talk more about (and provide more structure for) the second paper in coming classes. But, as explained in class today, the topic choices for the paper are limited to two hot(?) federal sentencing issues: federal statutory mandatory minimum sentencing provisions and/or circuit review of federal sentences for reasonableness after Booker.
There is an incredible amount of reading one can (and should?) do on either or both of these topics, and coverage of some basics on both topics can be found in our casebook. In addition, here are a few "classic" and/or recent documents worth checking out for more detailed background reading:
-
US Sentencing Commission, Special Report to Congress: Mandatory Minimum Penalties in the Federal Criminal Justice System (August 1991). As described by the USSC: "This report responds to a statutory directive that the Commission examine the compatibility of the sentencing guidelines and mandatory minimum penalties, the effect of mandatory minimums on the federal system, and congressional alternatives to mandatory minimums for directing sentencing policy."
-
Craig D. Rust, Student Note, When ‘Reasonableness’ is Not so Reasonable: The Need to Restore Clarity to the Appellate Review of Federal Sentencing Decisions after Rita, Gall, and Kimbrough (March 2010). From the abstract by the author: "Booker completely changed the sentencing landscape in the federal court system, but it left many questions as to what standards appellate courts would apply in reviewing sentencing decisions. The Supreme Court issued three opinions in 2007, Rita, Gall, and Kimbrough, in an attempt to resolve several of the circuit splits that resulted when the Supreme Court repealed the mandatory sentencing guidelines in Booker. Practically speaking, these decisions failed to clarify what authority appellate courts wield in the sentencing process, and how appellate judges should exercise that authority. This Article examines how the contradictory language from Rita, Gall, and Kimbrough not only failed to provide clarity, but created new inter- and even intra-circuit splits."
- William K. Sessions III (former USSC Chair), At the Crossroads of the Three Branches: The U.S. Sentencing Commission's Attempts to Achieve Sentencing Reform in the Midst of Inter-Branch Power Struggles (March 2011). From the abstract by the author: "[T]he Sentencing Commission must assume a leadership role in developing an improved federal sentencing scheme that recognizes the legitimate interests of each branch. I urge the Commission, working together with Congress and executive branch, to reformulate the guidelines in a manner that helps reduce unwarranted disparities while, at the same time, remove the main obstacle that has hindered lasting achievement of the aspirations of the SRA: the undue complexity and rigidity of the guidelines system, which have resulted in large part from congressional directives and draconian mandatory minimum statutes and which have caused increasing numbers of judges to resist (and, after Booker, in some cases entirely reject) substantial portions of the current guidelines."
None of these (lengthy) documents are required reading for the paper assignment, and there might be some value in doing some of your own web-exploration on both topics without reading these (lengthy) papers. Here are links to a variety of websites that discuss modern federal sentencing practices in various ways:
Sentencing Class @ OSU Moritz College of Law 