Appeal Waivers and the Future of Sentencing Policy

This paper is the first empirical analysis of appeal waivers clauses in plea agreements by which defendants waive their rights to appellate and postconviction review. Based on interviews and an analysis of data coded from 971 randomly selected cases sentenced under the United States Sentencing Guide...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:  
Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: King, Nancy J. (Autor)
Otros Autores: O'Neill, Michael E.
Tipo de documento: Electrónico Libro
Lenguaje:Inglés
Publicado: 2005
En:Año: 2005
Acceso en línea: Volltext (kostenfrei)
Verificar disponibilidad: HBZ Gateway

MARC

LEADER 00000cam a22000002c 4500
001 1866145827
003 DE-627
005 20250125054908.0
007 cr uuu---uuuuu
008 231018s2005 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c
035 |a (DE-627)1866145827 
035 |a (DE-599)KXP1866145827 
040 |a DE-627  |b ger  |c DE-627  |e rda 
041 |a eng 
084 |a 2,1  |2 ssgn 
100 1 |a King, Nancy J.  |e VerfasserIn  |4 aut 
245 1 0 |a Appeal Waivers and the Future of Sentencing Policy 
264 1 |c 2005 
336 |a Text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a Computermedien  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a Online-Ressource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
520 |a This paper is the first empirical analysis of appeal waivers clauses in plea agreements by which defendants waive their rights to appellate and postconviction review. Based on interviews and an analysis of data coded from 971 randomly selected cases sentenced under the United States Sentencing Guidelines, the study's findings include (1) in nearly two-thirds of the cases settled by plea agreement, the defendants waived their rights to review; (2) the frequency of waiver varies substantially among the circuits, and among districts within circuits; (3) the government appears to provide some sentencing concessions more frequently to defendants who sign waivers than to defendants who do not, including agreeing to C pleas (binding sentencing terms), downward departures, safety-valve credits, and a variety of stipulations; (4) many defendants who waive their rights to review obtain clauses in their agreements that limit their exposure to unexpected negative results at sentencing; (5) some defendants appear to receive neither greater certainty nor leniency in return for signing wide-open and unlimited waivers of their rights to review; (6) three-quarters of the defendants who waived appeal also waived collateral review, and of these, fewer than one-third preserved the right to raise a claim of ineffective assistance; and (7) waivers have been enforced to bar a variety of claims, including claims of ineffective assistance at sentencing and assertions of constitutional violations under Blakely and Booker. The observed trend of increased use of stipulations combined with no review raises the risk that sentences not in compliance with the law can proliferate without scrutiny. The uneven practice of trading sentencing concessions for waivers among cases and courts also suggests that waivers are undercutting efforts to advance consistency in federal sentencing 
700 1 |a O'Neill, Michael E.  |e VerfasserIn  |4 aut 
856 4 0 |u https://core.ac.uk/download/230470393.pdf  |x Verlag  |z kostenfrei  |3 Volltext 
935 |a mkri 
951 |a BO 
ELC |a 1 
LOK |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 
LOK |0 001 4391826585 
LOK |0 003 DE-627 
LOK |0 004 1866145827 
LOK |0 005 20231018043709 
LOK |0 008 231018||||||||||||||||ger||||||| 
LOK |0 035   |a (DE-2619)CORE34141312 
LOK |0 040   |a DE-2619  |c DE-627  |d DE-2619 
LOK |0 092   |o n 
LOK |0 852   |a DE-2619 
LOK |0 852 1  |9 00 
LOK |0 935   |a core 
OAS |a 1 
ORI |a SA-MARC-krimdoka001.raw