- 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
- New lawyers join the bar
- McDonald, Nessel seek to block parole of convicted murderer
- Oakland County Clerk/Register Brown brings services to Highland Township and surrounding areas with June 2 local office visit
- Federal appeals court dismisses Right to Life lawsuit
- Attorney arraigned, allegedly accepted a retainer while law license suspended
headlines National
- Play-Based Learning: Can simulation games help lawyers learn management and business development skills?
- ACLU and BigLaw firm use ‘Orange is the New Black’ in hashtag effort to promote NY jail reform
- Court orders hospital to resume gender-affirming care for transgender kids
- Netflix’s ‘The Lincoln Lawyer’ will rest his case at end of season 5
- Woman gives birth during arraignment in NYC courtroom
- SCOTUS will examine scope of Title IX protections and whether civil rights law covers work bias claims




