October Term 2009 · Docket 09-6338
Does a judge need a jury to reduce a sentence?
the side that brought the case seeks a lower sentence. The government argues the judge lacks authority.
Verified source milestones
- — 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.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Ms. Freeland argued the district court felt bound by a policy statement.
She claimed this prevented application of the Booker decision.
The resulting sentence exceeded the jury verdict maximum by six years.
Ms. Kruger argued the relevant statutes do not govern initial sentencing.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 21-29 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 21-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 37-25 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 37-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 17-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 51-7 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 51-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 43-7 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 43-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 11-11 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 11-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 27-35 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 27-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 39-39 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 39-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 25-33 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 25-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 3-7 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 3-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 45-5 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 45-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 29-5 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 29-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 27-35 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 27-35
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The case tests whether a judge can lower a sentence without a jury.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 37-25 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 37-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-13
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on March 30, 2010.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
What each side wants
the side that brought the case wants a lower sentence based on new guidelines.
The government wants to keep the original sentence intact.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 37-25 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 37-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-13
What each side says
the side that brought the case argues the judge must apply the new guidelines.
The government argues the judge lacks authority to reduce the sentence.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 37-25 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 37-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-13
What the justices asked
Justice Kennedy asked if a problem exists with the current approach.
Justice Ginsburg asked about the impact on the Sentencing Commission's motives.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 21-29 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 21-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 17-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 51-7 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 51-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 43-7 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 43-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 11-11 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 11-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 27-35 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 27-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 39-39 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 39-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 25-33 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 25-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 3-7 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 3-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 45-5 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 45-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 29-5 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 29-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 27-35 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 27-35
Why it matters
This case defines the scope of judicial power over existing sentences. It determines whether judges can modify sentences without jury involvement. The outcome shapes prison population management and sentencing consistency.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 37-25 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 37-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-13
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 Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 21-29 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 21-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 17-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 51-7 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 51-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 43-7 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 43-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 11-11 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 11-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 27-35 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 27-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 39-39 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 39-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 25-33 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 25-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 3-7 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 3-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 45-5 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 45-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 29-5 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 29-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 27-35 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 27-35
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 37-25 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 37-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 37-25 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 37-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-13 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-13
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.