Blakely v. Washington
E649383
Blakely v. Washington is a landmark 2004 U.S. Supreme Court decision that applied the Apprendi rule to state sentencing guidelines, holding that any fact increasing a defendant’s sentence beyond the statutory maximum must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Blakely v. Washington canonical | 5 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T7193347 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Blakely v. Washington Context triple: [United States v. Booker, relatedCase, Blakely v. Washington]
-
A.
Crawford v. Washington
Crawford v. Washington is a landmark 2004 U.S. Supreme Court decision that reshaped Confrontation Clause jurisprudence by holding that testimonial hearsay is inadmissible against a criminal defendant unless the witness is unavailable and there was a prior opportunity for cross-examination.
-
B.
De Jonge v. Oregon
De Jonge v. Oregon is a 1937 U.S. Supreme Court case that held the right to peaceful assembly is a fundamental liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and thus applies to the states.
-
C.
Washington v. Davis
Washington v. Davis is a 1976 U.S. Supreme Court case that held laws or policies with a racially disproportionate impact do not violate the Equal Protection Clause absent proof of discriminatory intent.
-
D.
Chiafalo v. Washington
Chiafalo v. Washington is a 2020 U.S. Supreme Court case that unanimously upheld states’ authority to penalize or replace “faithless electors” who do not vote in line with their state’s popular vote in presidential elections.
-
E.
Strickland v. Washington
Strickland v. Washington is a landmark 1984 U.S. Supreme Court case that established the two-pronged test for determining when a criminal defendant’s right to effective assistance of counsel has been violated.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Blakely v. Washington Target entity description: Blakely v. Washington is a landmark 2004 U.S. Supreme Court decision that applied the Apprendi rule to state sentencing guidelines, holding that any fact increasing a defendant’s sentence beyond the statutory maximum must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
-
A.
Crawford v. Washington
Crawford v. Washington is a landmark 2004 U.S. Supreme Court decision that reshaped Confrontation Clause jurisprudence by holding that testimonial hearsay is inadmissible against a criminal defendant unless the witness is unavailable and there was a prior opportunity for cross-examination.
-
B.
De Jonge v. Oregon
De Jonge v. Oregon is a 1937 U.S. Supreme Court case that held the right to peaceful assembly is a fundamental liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and thus applies to the states.
-
C.
Washington v. Davis
Washington v. Davis is a 1976 U.S. Supreme Court case that held laws or policies with a racially disproportionate impact do not violate the Equal Protection Clause absent proof of discriminatory intent.
-
D.
Chiafalo v. Washington
Chiafalo v. Washington is a 2020 U.S. Supreme Court case that unanimously upheld states’ authority to penalize or replace “faithless electors” who do not vote in line with their state’s popular vote in presidential elections.
-
E.
Strickland v. Washington
Strickland v. Washington is a landmark 1984 U.S. Supreme Court case that established the two-pronged test for determining when a criminal defendant’s right to effective assistance of counsel has been violated.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (47)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
Sixth Amendment case
ⓘ
United States Supreme Court case ⓘ criminal procedure case ⓘ landmark decision ⓘ |
| affectedLaw | Washington State Sentencing Reform Act ⓘ |
| appliesRuleFrom | Apprendi v. New Jersey ⓘ |
| citation | 542 U.S. 296 ⓘ |
| constitutionalProvisionInterpreted |
Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause
ⓘ
linked to:
Due Process Clause
Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution ⓘ
linked to:
U.S. Constitution, Sixth Amendment
|
| country |
United States
ⓘ
linked to:
United States of America
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 2004-06-24 ⓘ |
| decisionType | 5–4 decision ⓘ |
| dissentingOpinionBy |
Anthony M. Kennedy
ⓘ
Sandra Day O’Connor ⓘ Stephen G. Breyer ⓘ William H. Rehnquist ⓘ |
| docketNumber | 02-1632 ⓘ |
| extendsPrecedent | Apprendi v. New Jersey ⓘ |
| holding |
Any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
ⓘ
The statutory maximum for Apprendi purposes is the maximum sentence a judge may impose solely on the basis of the facts reflected in the jury verdict or admitted by the defendant. ⓘ |
| impact |
limited judicial discretion to increase sentences based on judge-found facts
ⓘ
prompted changes to state sentencing schemes ⓘ |
| joinedByInMajority |
Clarence Thomas
ⓘ
David H. Souter ⓘ John Paul Stevens ⓘ Sandra Day O’Connor ⓘ |
| jurisdiction |
United States
ⓘ
linked to:
United States of America
|
| legalIssue |
Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial
ⓘ
fact-finding in sentencing ⓘ sentencing guidelines ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy | Antonin Scalia ⓘ |
| page | 296 ⓘ |
| petitioner | Ralph Howard Blakely, Jr. ⓘ |
| relatedCase |
Apprendi v. New Jersey
ⓘ
Cunningham v. California ⓘ Ring v. Arizona ⓘ United States v. Booker ⓘ |
| reporter | United States Reports ⓘ |
| respondent |
State of Washington
ⓘ
linked to:
Washington State, United States
|
| result | Washington sentencing procedure held unconstitutional as applied ⓘ |
| subjectMatter |
criminal sentencing
ⓘ
jury trial rights ⓘ |
| topic |
judicial fact-finding
ⓘ
state sentencing guidelines ⓘ |
| volume | 542 ⓘ |
| yearDecided | 2004 ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: Blakely v. Washington Description of subject: Blakely v. Washington is a landmark 2004 U.S. Supreme Court decision that applied the Apprendi rule to state sentencing guidelines, holding that any fact increasing a defendant’s sentence beyond the statutory maximum must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
Referenced by (5)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.