This article examines how Judge Jack B. Weinstein, who served as a federal district judge in the Eastern District of New York for 53 years, approached the issue of consistency in sentencing after the Federal Sentencing Guidelines were rendered advisory in United States v. Booker. It was Judge Weinstein’s practice to publish a statement of reasons for each sentence he imposed, and the article relies on these statements of reason – as well as articles and speeches published by the Judge – to demonstrate how he attempted to ensure that each defendant before him received an individualized sentencing determination, and that comparable cases and sentencing factors were treated consistently. It examines how Judge Weinstein developed a specific sentencing procedure, took into account the personal history and characteristics of each defendant, and considered the need for the sentence in order to avoid unwanted sentencing disparities. It is a condensed version of an article that was originally published in the Cardozo Law Review in 2019.
A Judge’s Attempt at Sentencing Consistency After Booker: Judge Jack B. Weinstein’s Guidelines for Sentencing
- Views Icon Views
- Share Icon Share
- Search Site
Carolin E. Guentert, Ryan H. Gerber; A Judge’s Attempt at Sentencing Consistency After Booker: Judge Jack B. Weinstein’s Guidelines for Sentencing. Federal Sentencing Reporter 1 February 2021; 33 (3): 173–183. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/fsr.2021.33.3.173
Download citation file: