- 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
- Whitmer signs gun violence prevention legislation
- Department of Attorney General conducts statewide warrant sweep, arrests 9
- Adoptive families across Michigan recognized during Adoption Day and Month
- Reproductive Health Act signed into law
- Case study: Documentary highlights history of courts in the Eastern District
headlines National
- Oscar vs. Jeff: Trial lawyers and appellate counsel do different jobs, and it may show in their writing
- ‘Can a killer look like a granny?’ Prosecutor poses questions as mother-in-law of slain law prof goes on trial
- ILTACON 2025: The Wild, Wild West of legal tech
- After striking deal with Trump, this BigLaw firm worked with liberal groups to secure pro bono wins in 2 cases
- ‘Early decision conspiracy’ among top colleges is an antitrust violation, suit alleges
- Striking the Balance: How to make alternative fee arrangements work for everyone