- 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
- Counsel Connect
- Nessel files reply calling for full public hearings on DTE’s data center application
- Webinar looks at program provding protein to families involved with courts
- Michigan veterans warned of postcard scam targeting personal information
- Man sentenced for arson, ?first-degree animal torture/killing
headlines National
- Nikole Nelson champions a national model to bring legal services to those without access
- Social media and your legal career
- OJ Simpson estate accepts $58M claim by father of Ron Goldman, killed along with Nicole Brown Simpson
- Law prof who called for military action and end to Israel sues over teaching suspension
- The advantages of using an AI agent in contract review
- Courthouse rock, political talk lead to potential suspension for Elvis-loving judge




