- 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
- Attorneys sharpen courtroom skills at inaugural program
- Michigan tax preparers indicted for conspiring to defraud the United States and preparing false tax returns
- Woman pleads no contest on multiple cases, including embezzlement of $90K from her father
- As the country turns 250, retired judges hit the road to defend judicial independence
- Private mobile home water services provider, president sentenced for falsifying water safety, discharge tests
headlines National
- ABA connects death row inmate to pro bono attorneys who help free him
- ACLU and BigLaw firm use ‘Orange is the New Black’ in hashtag effort to promote NY jail reform
- 2 judges suspended in separate cases after being indicted on criminal charges
- Convicted ex-judge gets $5K fine but no prison time in immigration case
- Ohio governor signs bill prohibiting foreign litigation funding
- Many small firms collect payments faster than BigLaw counterparts, new data shows




