Judges will no longer be allowed to independently determine a fact in a criminal case, if the fact that increased mandatory minimum punishment for the accused, the Supreme Court Monday ruled that must be made by a jury ruled that any facts.
The decision marks an important Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial certainly, while establishing a new rule to balance the sentencing guidelines, with their own judicial discretion of the judge.
In the 5-4 decision, the high court overturned the existing laws from 1986 and 2002 precedent, allowing judges to make such a decision, own a preponderance of the evidence.
Recommendation: Do you know much about the United States Constitution do? A quiz.
In the overthrow of these precedents, the majority of judges said, must be submitted to the jury any fact that increases the defendant's sentence - including a mandatory minimum sentence - the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt compete.
"Sixth Amendment's basic query is a fact, whether it is a criminal element, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote:" In 17 of the majority opinion.
"When they find actually changing the aggravation of legality, in fact, the formation of a new offense necessarily an integral part, must be submitted to the jury, Judge Thomas said."
Want your primary political issues of interpretation? Get custom DC decoder updates.
"It is said that the defendant has received the same sentence or not, in fact, there is no answer," Thomas said.
Alleyne Court's decision laudable clean modern Sixth Amendment cases a strange characteristic, said: "Ryan Scott at Indiana University law professor.
"Before today, the right to a trial by jury, the maximum penalty for criminal defendants limiting exposure plays an important role, but not limited role of the lowest," he said.
Scott said, "Professor" to realize that there is no compelling reason to draw a constitutional sentencing "ceiling" and "the difference between the floor, the Court has declared the Sixth Amendment applies to both.
Sloan, president from Virginia, "the Constitution" program decided to immediately won acclaim.
"By limiting the judge's criminal jury to decide whether to impose mandatory minimum explicitly denied the ability to use elements of the court in the sentencing process appropriate to strengthen the protection of due process, we applauded them," Ms. Shi Silong said in a statement.
, "She said:" Like so already the case to the jury, we think this is best to let the jury decide mandatory minimum sentencing, rather than relying solely on the discretion of the judge the fact finder.
Thomas joined the majority, Justice Stephen Breyer Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan.
The case is very important because it acknowledges that under the Sixth Amendment jury to decide criminal cases, key facts, rather than allowing the judge to decide such issues play a greater role.
Objection, Chief Justice John Roberts argued that the minimum mandatory sentencing judge does not violate the Sixth Amendment guarantees a jury trial.
"The issue here is the power of the judge, no jury," he wrote Justice Antonin Scalia joined Anthony Kennedy said in a 10-page dissent. (Judge Alito a single dissident.)
"Place, until today's rules, the legislature can tell the judge certain facts for a certain weight, and asked the judge to formulate a sentence, based on the weight - so long as the sentence remain within the mandate of the jury," he wrote Road.
This problem occurs in the case, Alan 瑞安阿莱恩. Mr. Alleyne robbing a store manager, his day deposits, while on his way to a local bank conspiracy accomplice. Both the drawing manager deceit pull side of the road, where they pretended to have car trouble.
Alleyne partner, armed with a gun, asked the manager to hand over his money. Him to do so.
Alleyne was later arrested and charged with robbery and violent crime to use or carry firearms. His trial, the jury requested to determine whether the defendant a) firearms "ism" or 2) "brandished a knife" period, the suspect firearm.
The first option for a five-year minimum sentence, the second "waving" option "for the seven-year minimum term.
Jury convicted Alleyne use of firearms and firearms did not express this discovery was "brandished a knife."
However, the trial judge's decision to have a gun on their own evidence the dominant part of the sentencing process, in fact, brandished a knife. Alleyne was sentenced to seven years in prison, and more than five years.
The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment sentencing.
Chief Justice Roberts and other dissenting judge said, has been seven years in prison fully authorized to usurp the jury's verdict and the jury did not have any effect. According to "the Statute" the jury found guilty, the judge sentenced Alleyne entitled to anywhere from five years to life imprisonment.
"There is no additional finding of fact is the 'basic' within the scope of any penalty," Roberts said. "Render judgment upon the jury's role has been completed."
Thomas and the majority of judges do not agree. They found that "waving" element is a factor, increasing the allowable sentence, therefore, constitute a separate serious crimes, must be found by a jury, it may have received a different verdict sentencing range based on the defendant.
"If the judge found that the fact that the increase in the statutory maximum sentence, if found in violation of the Sixth Amendment, even if the defendant ultimately falls within the range of the original sentencing took one," Thomas wrote.
Case was sent back so Alleyne lower sentence can be commuted.
 
 



Other News:
Afghan Taliban say they killed 4 US troops
Supreme Court limits judges' discretion on minimum sentences
Actor James Gandolfini dies in Italy at age 51
Asian shares capped as upcoming Fed meeting jangles nerves
Asia Markets mostly down as investors eye Fed
US war games send signal to Assad
France threatens Google with privacy fines
Starboard says Smithfield sale undervalues company