- 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
- In the spotlight
- Local law students win national moot court competition
- Dept. issues Grant Funding Opportunity for victim advocacy and response services
- Nessel warns of fraudulent Facebook event pages targeting vendors
- Whitmer signs bipartisan bills protecting access to health care, boosting local development
headlines National
- Techshow attendees dig deeper into AI uses and capabilities
- ACLU and BigLaw firm use ‘Orange is the New Black’ in hashtag effort to promote NY jail reform
- Where can 1Ls get five-figure signing bonuses?
- Law firms see more cyberattacks, ransomware threats, new report says
- BigLaw’s share of litigation funding dropped in 2025
- Woman faces murder charge after allegedly taking abortion medication




