We found a match
Your institution may have rights to this item. Sign in to continue.
- Title
THE VALUE OF CONFRONTATION AS A FELONY SENTENCING RIGHT.
- Authors
Sanders, Shaakirrah R.
- Abstract
This Article advocates recognition of the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause as a felony sentencing right. In the modern U.S. criminal justice system, the adversarial process does not end once a plea or verdict of guilt is rendered. Fact-finding at felony sentencing hearings is as quantitatively vital as fact-finding at trials. Yet, sentencing courts continue to exercise discretion to increase punishment based on multiple categories of unproven criminal conduct. The denial of an opportunity to cross-examine this type of evidence undermines the core principle that those accused of felony crimes have the right to confront adversarial witnesses. Williams v. New York, the most historic case on the issue of confrontation rights at felony sentencing, held that crossexamination was not required to test the veracity of information presented at sentencing hearings. Williams was decided before incorporation of the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause. Williams also reflects a sentencing model that assumes judicial authority to consider un-cross-examined testimony for purposes of fixing the punishment. This assumption may be unwarranted in light of recent jurisprudence on criminal procedure rights at felony sentencing. Williams constitutes the beginning of the debate on the issue of confrontation rights at felony sentencing, not the conclusion. The standard that applied to confrontation rights at the time of Williams has been reformed. More recent jurisprudence establishes that where testimonial statements are at issue, the only indicium of reliability sufficient to satisfy constitutional demands is confrontation. While this jurisprudence has only been applied during the trial, it can be practically and efficiently applied at felony sentencing. The Sixth Amendment's other clauses give reason to look beyond Williams. The structurally identical Jury Trial and Counsel Clauses have rejected the "trial-right-only" approach to Sixth Amendment rights. The Counsel Clause applies to all "critical stages" of the "criminal prosecution" which includes sentencing. The Court recently expanded the Jury Trial Clause to any fact that increased the statutory maximum or minimum punishment. In light of this jurisprudence and the growing importance of sentencing hearings, a framework should be established to distinguish between sentencing evidence that should be cross-examined and sentencing evidence that should not be cross-examined. This Article advocates constitutional recognition of a right to confront felony sentencing evidence and provides a paradigm fo r doing so. Part I of this Article explains Williams and demonstrates how recent interpretations of confrontation rights at trial should now inform the issue of confrontation at felony sentencing. Part II of this Article explains the development of sentencing rights with regards to the Counsel and Jury Trial Clauses. Part III exposes Williams as a reflection of the indeterminate sentencing model. This Article concludes that confrontation should apply to evidence that is material to punishment and where cross-examination will assist in assessing truth and veracity.
- Subjects
UNITED States; CONFRONTATION clause (Law); CRIMINAL justice system; FELONIES -- Lawsuits &; claims; CRIMINAL sentencing; UNITED States. Constitution. 6th Amendment
- Publication
Widener Law Journal, 2016, Vol 25, Issue 1, p103
- ISSN
1548-4076
- Publication type
Article