- 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
- Solo practitioner happy to spearhead association’s Young Lawyers Section
- Nessel urges consumers to avoid romance scams this Valentines Day
- Nominating Committee conducts forum for ABA leadership candidates
- Third leader charged in multi-state forced labor conspiracy involving Kingdom of God Global Church
- Businesses from across the state recognized as 2026 Michigan Celebrates Small Business award winners
headlines National
- A wave of lawsuits has resulted from online comments after Charlie Kirk’s assassination
- Goldman Sachs top lawyer resigns after emails show Jeffrey Epstein friendship
- Failed indictment of 6 Democratic lawmakers blamed on Jeanine Pirro-picked prosecutors
- Federal judges may address ‘illegitimate forms of criticism and attacks,’ according to new ethics opinion
- Senate GOP aims to reveal companies funding lawsuits
- Bad Bunny’s ‘love conquering hate’ message at Super Bowl reiterated by judge sentencing assaulter




