- 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
- Holiday Gala
- Jury finds Pontiac woman guilty of felony animal neglect following rescue of 37 animals
- Court of Appeals orders resentencing for 18-year-old in second degree murder case
- Local Gems Sweepstakes spotlights hundreds of Oakland County small businesses
- Nessel secures settlements with Menards, Hyundai and Kia, provides updates on Google settlement
headlines National
- Former judge sentenced to 12 years in prison for using public funds for vacations, personal purchases
- ACLU and BigLaw firm use ‘Orange is the New Black’ in hashtag effort to promote NY jail reform
- Attorney sentenced to 25 years in prison after taking client money for gambling
- Ex-DLA Piper partner accused of assault by former associate
- Legal leaders shoulder more stress, new survey shows
- Some noncitizens may have Second Amendment rights, federal appeals court says




