- 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
- Historical: Circuit Court judge has made indelible mark
- ABA amicus brief supports noncitizens’ right to a bond hearing when detention becomes ‘unreasonably prolonged’
- Nessel secures full victory in lawsuit challenging administration’s attack on fair housing protections
- Whitmer announces new automotive jobs, investment in Oakland County
- AG pushes federal government to strengthen rules to combat illegal robocalls
headlines National
- ABA Legal Ed council repeals DEI standard
- Is Perry Mason TV’s most effective lawyer? New study names top 5
- Lawyer who cited paraphrasing as direct quotes in 2nd Circuit brief says AI played a role
- After jury deadlock and mistrial, Lindsay Clancy could face second trial
- Murder, Corruption and RICO in Georgia: Fateful meeting I didn’t want to attend led to courtroom win
- Bad Bunny, Justin Bieber among musical stars facing copyright suit for using reggaeton’s signature beat




