I would like you to read Cunningham v. California and comment upon it. I would like you to analyze the case and give me a full analysis of the case indicating your agreement or disagreement with the following concepts:
What are the due process issues that we were looking at?
What are findings of fact versus findings of law?
Should a judge be able to make findings of fact versus findings of law at the penalty phase of the trial? Please explain the distinction between the guilt and penalty phases.
What is the problem with the judge making the decision about finding of facts?
Please comment upon the case and comment upon the California sentencing standards which were in place prior to the Cunningham v. California case and let me know, from a public policy standpoint, why you agree or disagree with the case or how you would have modified the case assuming that that might have been a third option.
