CALENDAR: The next meeting of the Sentencing Commission will take place on Tuesday, October 17, 2006. The meeting will take place in Room 314 of 3 Station, 44 South Clinton Ave. Trenton. The meeting will begin at 10:00 a.m. and is closed to the public.

September 24, 2006
Star Ledger
Editorial: Rethink Sex Offender Bans

September 18, 2006
Asbury Park Press
Megan’s Law Loophole Still Needs A Mend

September 18, 2006
Newsday
AG Nominee Clears Senate Panel, Vows Corruption Fight

September 19, 2006
Press of Atlantic City
Assemblyman Changes Mind On Capital Punishment

September 14, 2006
Star Ledger
Editorial: A Caseload Crunch

September 14, 2006
Star Ledger
Death Penalty Evokes Anguished Debate

September 14, 2006
Courier-Post
Editorial: State Should Abolish Capital Punishment

September 13, 2006
Star Ledger
NJ Panel Counts Cost of Death Penalty

September 11, 2006
Newsday
Death Penalty Debate Expected Amid More Property Reform Talks

September 12, 2006
Star Ledger
Court Weighs Warnings About Young Teen Sex Offenders

September 10, 2006
Star Ledger
Inmates Trying To Open A New Door

August 29, 2006
Press of Atlantic City
Offenders Find Help At County Drug Court

August 24, 2006
Newsday
July Court Ruling Sparks Appeals From Death Row

September 25, 2006
South Bend Tribune
Experts Say Prison Sentence Often Last Resort

September 24, 2006
Los Angeles Times
A Quiet Bombshell in the Legal World: A High Court Decision Puts Mandatory Sentencing Laws in Limbo

September 20, 2006
Washington Post
Chaos In Sentencing

September 11, 2006
Associated Press
Climb In Violent Crime Seen In 2005

September 8, 2006
Arkansas News Bureau
Hutchinson Sets Goal Of Cutting Drug Abuse In Half in Four Years

September 7. 2006
New York Times
Inmates Report Mental Illness At High Levels

August 29, 2006
Kalamazoo Gazette
Prisoner Reentry Pilot Could Save Money, Lives

August 27, 2006
San Francisco Chronicle
Maximum Insecurity: California’s Prison System Produces Bizarre and Dangerous Results Harmful To Inmates and Public

August 23, 2006
Washington Post
Op-Ed: Will Congress Listen To The Courts And Fix Drug Sentencing?

Apprendi & Blakely Issues

Making Sentencing Sensible
Professor Douglas A. Berman & Professor Stephanos Bibas

General Sentencing Policy

Contemporary Sentencing Reform In California: A Report To The Little Hoover Commission
Stanford Law School & Stanford Criminal Justice Center

State Sentencing Commissions
Stanford Law School & Stanford Criminal Justice Center

So You Want To Start A Sentencing Commission?
Mike Connelly, Ph.D. & Kim Hunt, Ph.D.

Federal or State? Sorting As A Sentencing Choice
Professor Ronald F. Wright

Negotiating Federal Plea Agreements Post-Booker
Barry Boss, Esq. & Nicole L. Angarella, Esq.

Preliminary Quarterly Data Report – 3rd Quarter
United States Sentencing Commission

Death Penalty

Florida Death Penalty Assessment Report and Resources
American Bar Association

Recidivism

Recidivism In Connecticut
Connecticut Department of Corrections

Miscellaneous

Mental Health Problems of Prison and Jail Inmates
Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report

 

New Jersey

State v. Marshall Rountree, N.J. Super. (App. Div. 2006)
Docket Nos. A-2043-02T1, A-5014, 03T1
In this consolidated appeal, the Appellate Division rejected the claim made by defendant, a second offender under the Graves Act, that the Supreme Court of New Jersey's decision in State v. Franklin, 184 N.J.. 516 (2005), and, implicitly, the strictures enunciated by the United States Supreme Court in Apprendi v. New Jersey and Blakely v. Washington, should apply retroactively to cases on collateral, i.e., post-conviction, review. In Franklin, the Supreme Court of New Jersey held that the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial requires that a jury, not a judge, make the predicate finding that a defendant possessed or used a gun in repeat Graves Act cases. In this case, the Appellate Division declined defendant's invitation to disregard the New Jersey Supreme Court's explicit pronouncement in Franklin that its holding would be given "pipeline retroactivity," that is, would apply only to cases on direct appeal. The Appellate Division derived further support from Schriro v. Summerlin, 542 U.S. 348 (2004), wherein the United States Supreme Court determined that retroactive application of Apprendi collateral review is not required under the United States Constitution.