October Term 2005 · Docket 05-83

Can a judge decide facts that raise a criminal sentence?

The dispute centers on whether a judge may find facts that increase a sentence beyond the standard range.

Official caption
Washington v. Recuenco
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Mr. Whisman argued that a judge deciding facts that raise a sentence violates the Sixth Amendment.

    Mr. Link argued that the error in this case could not be subjected to harmless error analysis.

    Ms. Millett argued that failure to submit an element to a jury is subject to harmless error analysis.

    Mr. Whisman distinguished his case by noting the defendant was never put on notice of aggravated murder.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

This case tests the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial. It asks if a judge can decide facts that raise a sentence above the standard range. the side that brought the case argues this violates constitutional rights. the opposing side argues the error was harmless.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on April 17, 2006.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

the side that brought the case wants the Court to declare the judge’s fact-finding unconstitutional.

the opposing side wants the Court to allow harmless error analysis for this mistake.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

the side that brought the case argues a judge cannot decide facts that increase punishment above the standard range.

the opposing side argues this error is nonstructural and subject to harmless error review.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Stevens asked if the firearm must be operable.

Justice Kennedy questioned if the prosecutor thought there was no error regarding the deadly weapon definition.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines the boundary between judge and jury powers in sentencing. It determines who decides facts that raise criminal penalties. The outcome shapes the core of the jury trial right in criminal law.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON