- 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
- Gilman Award Luncheon
- Consumers warned of unpaid toll road smishing scam
- Attorneys general sign letter calling on congress to make ‘maximum possible’ investment in LSC
- Justice Dept. files statement of interest supporting private citizens’ right to sue under Voting Rights Act of 1965
- Nessel announces findings in Plymouth Twp. voter intimidation investigation
headlines National
- Less litigation, more practical skills in law school needed, junior associates say
- Black retired judge who flew first class says flight attendant ordered her to use coach restroom
- Immigration law firm will expand nearly 10% with addition of Seyfarth Shaw team
- Clark Hill was ‘duped by an obvious scam,’ costing its client $1.1M, suit alleges
- Former general counsel failed to file federal tax returns while earning $54M, he admits in guilty plea
- New US citizens sworn in 100 feet underground