In the United States vs. Booker case, the defendant got arrested on charges of possessing marijuana. The police officers were suspicious that he was concealing the illicit drugs in his rectum. Therefore, they took him to the hospital for examination. The doctor at the hospital injected Booker with drugs that later paralyzed him for a while. After conducting a rectal study at the time of his unconsciousness, the doctor removed crack cocaine from his system. The sixth circuit then concluded that the search was a big shock to the moral sense, and it violated the 6th Amendment, and the evidence ought to have been suppressed (Kim et al., 2016). They argued that the doctor only acted as an emissary of the police and did not have permission to execute the medical procedure.
The courts concluded Both Booker's and Graf's cases differently. In Graf's case, the district court refused to suppress the cocaine as they considered it as proper evidence. The evidence was sufficient to allow the Jury to come up with a ruling. The Jury concluded that Graf was a frequent purchaser of the drugs for individual use. The Jury, therefore, ruled out that Graf was a part of the conspiracy to transport cocaine. The court also rejected Graf's application for a new trial.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
In the booker's case, the court ruled based on the 6 th Amendment right to a jury trial. According to the court, the sixth Amendment applies whether the defendant has pleaded guilty or not (Nowacki, 2018). The court allowed judges to execute sentences using facts that were not reviewed by the Jury. Unlike Graf's case, Booker was entitled to appeal for the Seventh circuit claiming that the sentencing violated the 6 th Amendment. The Seventh Circuit later affirmed that indeed the procedure for conviction violated the Sixth circuit. The court later reversed Booker's sentencing.
References
Kim, B., Cano, M. V., Kim, K., & Spohn, C. (2016). The impact of United States v. Booker and Gall/Kimbrough v. United States on sentence severity: Assessing social context and judicial discretion. Crime & Delinquency , 62 (8), 1072-1094.
Nowacki, J. S. (2018). Federal sentencing guidelines and United States v. Booker: Social context and sentencing disparity. Criminal Justice Policy Review , 29 (1), 45-66.
