- 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
- Cider Man: Chicago lawyer reclaims his heritage with cidery in upstate New York
- Did ‘corporate speak’ and PowerPoint lead to complacency at GM?
- Voting is a right and a responsibility, ABA President Barbara J. Howard says
- Ex-state deputy attorney general accused of making AI-generated child porn
- New murder trial ordered over juror’s mental health crisis in 9th Circuit
- ABA 2026 Celebration of Pro Bono to focus on ‘Serving Justice. Strengthening Democracy’




