Professor Berman of Sentencing Law and Policy reports on two post-Blakely decisions in New York, one from the Eastern District, US v. Medas, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12135 (E.D.N.Y. July 1, 2004) in which:

District Judge I. Leo Glasser discusses Judge Cassell's Croxford opinion and states that he is "driven to arrive at the same conclusion [that the FSG are unconstitutional] for the reasons stated by Judge Cassell in a language that is eloquent in its simplicity and clarity."

Judge Glasser discusses this issue in a fascinating context. Apparently he has a jury deliberating in a criminal case now, but "immediately after the jury retired to deliberate the government submitted a 20 page Supplemental Verdict Sheet with a request that it, too, be provided to the jury. That Supplemental Verdict Sheet, the government urged, was the legitimate offspring of Blakely." After explaining that the government's "pre-Blakely indictment does not allege the enhancing sentencing factors the government now requests be submitted to the jury post-trial" and that "no mention was made of those factors during the trial," Judge Glasser refuses to submit the Supplemental Verdict Sheet to the still deliberating jury.

The second decision is from the Southern District of New York: