Document Type
Article
Media Type
Text
Abstract
This comment explores the true impact of the 2000 landmark decision, Apprendi v. New Jersey, in which the United States Supreme Court determined that any fact that increases a criminal defendant's sentence beyond the statutory maximum has to be submitted to a jury and proven beyond a reasonable doubt. At the time, the decision appeared to be a triumph for the procedural due process rights of defendants. However the opinion of the majority, as well as those of the concurrence and dissents, left the actual effect of the decision subject to considerable debate among courts and commentators. In 2002 the Supreme Court decided three cases that addressed some of these issues, and illustrated that the Court has failed to find a definite, unified principle to effectively protect the procedural due process rights of defendants. This comment explores those decisions and then argues that the Court should overrule Apprendi in favor of an alternative that will more effectively protect the rights of defendants, such as requiring aggravating factors to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt at sentencing.
First Page
117
Last Page
151
Publication Date
11-1-2003
Department
College of Law
ISSN
0734-1490
Language
eng
Publisher
Northern Illinois University Law Review
Recommended Citation
LeClercq, Charlotte
(2003)
"The 2002 Supreme Court Decisions: Did They Leave Enough of Apprendi to Effectively Protect Criminal Defendants?,"
Northern Illinois University Law Review: Vol. 24:
Iss.
1, Article 5.
Suggested Citation
Charlotte LeClercq, Comment, The 2002 Supreme Court Decisions: Did They Leave Enough of Apprendi to Effectively Protect Criminal Defendants?, 24 N. Ill. U. L. Rev. 117 (2003).
