Notice and GITMO

Bad news: our clients are not entitled to notice that the sentencing court intends to exceed the guideline range. US v. Irizarry was issued by the USSCT today, and held that, "Any constitutionally protected expectation that a defendant will receive a sentence within the presumptively applicable Guidelines range did not, however, survive United States v. Booker, 543 U. S. 220, which invalidated the Guidelines’ mandatory features." Rule 32, the basis for the required notice under the mandatory guidelines, does not have the same effect on the advisory guidelines. Look out, Wichita.

Of little consolation is this admonition, "Sound practice dictates that judges in all cases should make sure that the information provided to the parties in advance of the hearing, and in the hearing itself, has given them an adequate opportunity to confront and debate the relevant issues." They also allow for a continuance for prejudicial surprise. I guess some due process lives.

Now for the big news: the Justices ruled in favor of the Gitmo detainees, here. The detainees can challenge their detention in federal court, as the military lacks the legal autonomy to prosecute. It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Here's the link to SCOTUSBlog on Boumediene v. Bush, and here's the SCOTUSBlog lede:
"In a stunning blow to the Bush Administration in its war-on-terrorism policies, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday that foreign nationals held at Guantanamo Bay have a right to pursue habeas challenges to their detention. The Court, dividing 5-4, ruled that Congress had not validly taken away habeas rights. If Congress wishes to suspend habeas, it must do so only as the constitution allows — when the country faces rebellion or invasion."
Read more!