CALENDAR: The next meeting of the Sentencing Commission will held on Tuesday, December 19, 2006, at 10:00 a.m.

November 15, 2006
Asbury Park Press
Paying For Corruption

October 30, 2006
Courier News
Biondi Calls For Harsher Drug Penalties

October 24 2006
Star Ledger
Accused Child Murderer Hits Legal Snag

November 26, 2006
Associated Press
Lawmakers Again Fail To Address Drug Sentencing Disparity

November 24, 2006
Washington Post
Despite Fewer Lockups, NYC Has Seen Big Drop In Crime

November 20, 2006
The Sacramento Bee
State Sentencing Commission Under Study

November 20, 2006
The Roanoke Times
Making Time Fit The Crime

November 16, 2006
Lawrence Journal-World
Sex Offender Restrictions Under Fire

November 13, 2006
The Plain Dealer
Ohio Lagging On Federal Standards To Deal With Repeat Drunken Drivers

November 14, 2006
Forbes.com
Judge Says Crack Sentencing Goes Too Far

November 9, 2006
Wired.com
Attack Of The Perv Trackers

November 8, 2006
San Francisco Chronicle
Sex Offender Proposition 83 Blocked In Court

November 9, 2006
USA Today
Supreme Court Asked to Apply Sentencing Rule Retroactively

November 4, 2006
New York Times
Supreme Court To Revisit Federal Sentencing Issues

Drug Policy

Re-Entry

General Sentencing Policy

New Jersey

State v. Porfirio Jiminez, __ N.J. (2006)
Docket No. A-50-2006
Held:In this appeal, the Supreme Court of New Jersey declared that a capital defendant seeking to avoid a death sentence by claiming that he is mentally retarded has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he falls into that category. Bringing New Jersey in line with most other states that have considered the issue, the New Jersey Supreme Court overturned a lower court's ruling that lack of mental retardation is equivalent to an offense element and hence must be proved by the state beyond a reasonable doubt. In Atkins v. Virginia, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the Eighth Amendment bars the execution of mentally retarded people. The Atkins Court specifically left it up to the states to define mental retardation and to develop procedures for making retardation determinations in individual cases. Since that time, every other state that has looked at the issue has held that a defendant must bear the burden of proving an Atkins claim, though those courts differ as to the weight of the burden defendants carry. The Court said that a claim of mental retardation is much like a claim of insanity in important respects. Insanity is an affirmative defense that a defendant must prove, it explained, and this is because "the claim is unrelated to the underlying elements of the crime that the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt in every case." As with an insanity defense, the Court continued, where a mental retardation claim is made, the state still must prove all the elements of the offense, including a capital trigger.