Justice Stevens has had a critical role in the Supreme Court's resolution of that question, in several respects. Second, along with Justice Scalia, in early cases reviewing sentencing enhancements, he indicated his broad interpretation of the jury trial and due process rights. Third, having persuaded five of the Court's nine justices of his views, he authored the opinion for the Court in a Apprendi v. New Jersey , the leading case in which the Court announced a broad reading of the constitutional rights at issue. Justice Scalia has been the other justice arguing in agreement with Justice Stevens in many of the cases addressing a jury's role in criminal sentencing. One year later, Justice Stevens wrote one of two majority opinions for the Court in United States v. Booker , in which the Court addressed the question whether the Blakely holding applied to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Although it remains permissible for judges to take relevant facts into consideration when rendering criminal sentences, they now may not increase sentences beyond the prescribed statutory maximum unless the facts supporting such an increase are found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
Justice Stevens has played a critical role in the Supreme Court's interpretation of a jury's role in criminal sentencing. In 2000, he wrote the majority opinion for the Court in Apprendi v. New Jersey, a landmark case in which the Court held that a judge typically may not increase a sentence beyond the range prescribed by statute unless the increase is based on facts determined by a jury "beyond a reasonable doubt." In 2005, he wrote one of two majority opinions in United States v. Booker, in which the Court applied the Apprendi rule to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. In those two cases and in several other cases on this issue during the past few decades, Justice Stevens has been a leading voice, articulating a broad interpretation of the jury trial and due process rights at issue.