- Posted January 16, 2013
- Tweet This | Share on Facebook
Hight court seems split on mandatory minimum issue
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court seems split on whether a jury or a judge should have the final say on facts that can trigger mandatory minimum sentences in criminal trials.
The justices heard arguments Monday in Allen Alleyne's case. He was convicted of robbery and firearm possession in Richmond, Va. The jury said Alleyne's accomplice did not brandish a weapon, but the judge said he did, raising Alleyne's minimum sentence from five to seven years on that charge.
Alleyne's lawyers say the brandishing decision should have been the jury's, and it should have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Instead, the judge made his determination using a lower standard of proof. The Justice Department argued that the current system has been used successfully for years.
The justices will rule later this summer.
Published: Wed, Jan 16, 2013
headlines Oakland County
headlines National
- 50 Years of Service: ABA has been a ‘stalwart ally’ for LSC funding
- ACLU and BigLaw firm use ‘Orange is the New Black’ in hashtag effort to promote NY jail reform
- Biden recalls time he bluffed knowledge of torts case and why he changed his mind about civil-trial work
- Lawyers’ ‘barrage of personal attacks’ on opponents started with tissue-box toss, appeals court says
- Longtime prosecutor resigns after judge tosses him from case, citing Perry Mason-type revelations
- 24% of law students expect to work in public service, survey says