- 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
- Counsel Connect
- Nessel files reply calling for full public hearings on DTE’s data center application
- Webinar looks at program provding protein to families involved with courts
- Michigan veterans warned of postcard scam targeting personal information
- Man sentenced for arson, ?first-degree animal torture/killing
headlines National
- The business of successfully running an in-house department
- ACLU and BigLaw firm use ‘Orange is the New Black’ in hashtag effort to promote NY jail reform
- Justice Gorsuch writes children’s book about ‘Heroes of 1776’
- Companies use ‘deceitful tactics’ to market harmful ultra-processed products with ‘addictive nature,’ city’s suit alleges
- Lawyer accused of trying to poison her husband
- ‘Lawyers Gone Wild’? Filmmaker criticizes bar as he seeks ethics probe of serial killer’s daughter for alleged lie




