- 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
headlines National
- Protecting Attorney-Client Relationships: ABA advocacy helps safeguard the right to effective assistance of counsel
- Did ‘corporate speak’ and PowerPoint lead to complacency at GM?
- Ex-employee sues Sheppard Mullin over cyberattack exposing sensitive personal data
- Ropes & Gray allows more attorneys to count AI testing toward billable hours
- Plaintiff who filed fraudulent case, trashed desktop computer hit with sanctions
- Man who threatened Supreme Court justices avoids prison time




