Judges have too much power to add extra years to sentences for "aggravating facts" under California law, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled this week.

The Los Angeles Times reported Jan. 23 that the high court struck down part of the state's sentencing law as unconstitutional in a 6-3 ruling, with the majority saying that jurors, not judges, should decide what factors go into a sentence. The ruling could mean shorter sentences for some current prisoners with cases on appeal, as well as new defendants coming before the courts.

"This is going to be a tremendous mess for the courts to sort out," said Santa Clara law professor Gerald Uelmen, executive director of the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice. "The Supreme Court has thrown us a hot potato," agreed California Attorney General Jerry Brown.  "This will definitely complicate matters for us."

The Supreme Court has issued a number of rulings in recent years that have tended to empower juries over judges in determining sentences. Ironically, the California law passed in 1977 was intended to curb judicial power by setting a lower, middle, and upper prison term for offenses, and directing judges to impose the middle term unless "aggravating circumstances" demanded the upper term. The majority opinion of the Supreme Court said that the "middle term ...  not the upper term, is the relevant statutory maximum," and that the judge in the case (Cunningham v. California) violated the defendant's constitutional rights by imposing the harsher sentence.