Gall v. United States
552 U.S. ___ (2007)

Annotate this Case

552 U. S. ____ (2007
552 U. S. ____ (2007
552 U. S. ____ (2007
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
NO. 06-7949

BRIAN MICHAEL GALL, PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES

on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eighth circuit

[December 10, 2007]

   Justice Souter, concurring.

   I join the Court’s opinion here, as I do in today’s companion case of Kimbrough v. United States, post, p. ___, which follow United States v. Booker, 543 U. S. 220 (2005), and Rita v. United States, 551 U. S. ___ (2007). My disagreements with holdings in those earlier cases are not the stuff of formally perpetual dissent, but I see their objectionable points hexing our judgments today, see id., at ___ (Souter, J., dissenting), and Booker, supra, at 272 (Stevens, J., dissenting in part). After Booker’s remedial holding, I continue to think that the best resolution of the tension between substantial consistency throughout the system and the right of jury trial would be a new Act of Congress: reestablishing a statutory system of mandatory sentencing guidelines (though not identical to the original in all points of detail), but providing for jury findings of all facts necessary to set the upper range of sentencing discretion. See Rita,supra, at ___ (slip op., at 9).

Official Supreme Court caselaw is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia caselaw is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.