Criminal Defendants Have Greater 6th Amendment Protections
The United States Supreme Court is refining how judges impose sentences on criminal defendants. Using several cases, the Court has determined that only a jury, not a judge, can establish facts used to increase a defendant's sentence beyond the maximum allowed by law. Such facts must be found, by a jury, to be true beyond a reasonable doubt, not by a preponderance of the evidence.
A defendant charged with a felony has a right to a trial by jury. The jury must establish every relevant fact proving the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Some matters, such as whether evidence is allowed to be presented can be determined by the judge. The judge will also usually impose the final sentence upon the defendant.
In some matters, including civil cases, facts need only be proved by a preponderance of the evidence. A fact is true by a preponderance of the evidence if it is more likely true than not true. Many trial issues ruled on by the judge only need to be determined by a preponderance of the evidence. The guilt or innocence of a criminal defendant, however, must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
In every state, the legislature sets a range of prison terms that a judge can impose. Most states allow the judge to go beyond that range when there are aggravating circumstances showing that the defendant should be punished more harshly. Before the US Supreme Court's string of rulings on this matter, a judge could sentence a defendant to a term longer than the maximum if he found by a preponderance of the evidence that aggravating circumstances existed in the case.
Starting with the case of Apprendi v. New Jersey and continuing through the recent case of Cunningham v. California, the Court has been refining how a defendant's 6th Amendment right to a trial by jury applies to sentencing. The Court has ruled that any fact used by a judge to impose a sentence greater than the legal maximum must be established by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
In the California case, Cunningham was convicted of continuous sexual abuse of a child and sentenced to 16 years in prison. California's sentencing law required the judge impose a sentence of 12 years unless he found aggravating circumstances existed. The US Supreme has ordered the judge to either sentence Cunningham to 12 years or have a jury establish the facts of the aggravating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt.