- 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
- Reading reenactment
- Supreme Court overturns precedent on how to determine a child's domicile when parents are divorced
- Nessel reissues government imposter scams consumer alert following reports
- Formal Opinion 524: Government lawyers’ obligations when knowing of a public official’s intended or ongoing violation of law
- Whitmer signs bipartisan bills to address the opioid crisis, support public health
headlines National
- How to use AI but steer clear of hallucinated cases
- Lawyers for low-income clients strike in NYC
- Top prosecutor for International Criminal Court accused of sexual misconduct
- Big Tech companies facing new wave of lawsuits over copyright and AI
- Lawyer says he was ‘manic’ when he bought Cape Cod mansion in danger of falling into ocean
- Judge regrets ‘entitled little snot’ comment but still fit for the bench, lawyer says




