No. 19-8478
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: alleyne-v-united-states criminal-procedure fact-finding judicial-discretion jury-determination jury-fact-finding mcmillan-v-pennsylvania preponderance-of-the-evidence preponderance-standard sentencing sentencing-enhancement united-states-v-watts
Key Terms:
Securities Immigration
Securities Immigration
Latest Conference:
2020-06-11
Question Presented (from Petition)
I. BY A JURY TO ENHANCE A SENTENCE?
AFTER THIS COURT'S DECISION IN UNITED STATES V. ALLEYNE, 570 U.S. 99 (2013), NON-CONTROLLING, CAN THE PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE STANDARD BE USED AT SENTENCING WHERE A SINGLE FACT IS BOTH AN ELEMENT OF THE OFFENSE AND A SENTENCING FACTOR?
II. LONGER CONTROLLING, CAN THIS COURT'S RULING IN U.S. V. WATTS, 519 U.S. 148 (1997) SURVIVES FIFTH AND SIXTH AMENDMENT SCRUTINY?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Can a judge rely on facts not found by a jury to enhance a sentence after this Court's decision in United States v. Alleyne, 570 U.S. 99 (2013), where this Court made McMillan v. Pennsylvania, 477 U.S. 79 (1986), non-controlling?
Docket Entries
2020-06-15
Petition DENIED.
2020-05-27
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/11/2020.
2020-05-19
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2020-03-16
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due June 15, 2020)
Attorneys
John King
John King — Petitioner
United States
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent