Supreme Court on Friday rule The ruling, which transfers the rights to jury trials and due process to people facing steep sentencing under federal law, transfers some power from judges to the public and will affect future punishments for many criminal defendants.
The case’s procedural history has been a bit of a whirlwind. But at the heart of it is Paul Erlinger, who was charged in 2017 with being a felon in possession of a firearm and sentenced to 15 years in prison under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), which increases the risk of Penalties for this crime (felon in possession of a firearm). maximum to 15 years at the lowest limit If the defendant has been previously convicted of three violent felonies or serious drug offenses.
There was an initial twist in the sentencing, with the judge who imposed the 15-year sentence making it clear it was inappropriate. Erlinger, who had pleaded guilty, had found a stable job, started a family and remained drug-free in the more than a decade since his last conviction, so the judge said the five-year sentence was “fair.” But under ACCA, the court’s hands are tied.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit said shortly afterwards that two of Erlinger’s crimes for consideration for ACCA purposes did not actually qualify as violent felonies or serious drug crimes. Prosecutors, however, were undeterred. They returned to court, citing a conviction related to Ehlinger’s burglary, which the felon committed 26 years ago when he was 18 and charged with possessing a firearm. Ellinger countered that the burglaries in question were part of one offence, rather than separate incidents as required by ACCA, and that, most importantly, the jury needed to decide accordingly as to the independence of the offences.
The sentencing court disagreed, ruling that it was the judge’s decision and that the court was bound by ACCA, so it imposed a new sentence of 15 years, again calling it “unfortunate” and “excessive”.
But Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the 6-3 majority opinion, explained that Ehlinger did have Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights to ask the jury whether the crimes were committed alone, and whether he is therefore vulnerable to a significant increase in incarceration. The outcome was at least somewhat predictable when one considers another twist: After Ehlinger appealed on the grounds that his constitutional rights had been violated, the government agreed. But the Seventh Circuit still refused to reconsider his sentence, leaving Ehlinger to petition the Supreme Court.
The core of Gorsuch’s view is that Aprendi v. New Jersey (2000), a Supreme Court precedent that held that it was unconstitutional for a judge to impose a harsher sentence on a defendant because the shooting was allegedly motivated by racial animus because no jury tested that factor beyond a reasonable doubt consideration or making any decision. The court ruled that only a jury and jury can discover “facts that increase the range of prescribed penalties to which a criminal defendant is subject” because that would cause the penalty to exceed the prescribed statutory maximum.
But Gorsuch also said there is something else on the Supreme Court today: history. “The most important reason given by the colonists in the Declaration of Independence for breaking away from Britain was that Parliament and the King ‘deprived them of their rights’.[ed] [them] “There are advantages to a jury trial in many circumstances,” he wrote. and serve as a check on the government.
This is not new territory for Gorsuch, who has made clear he respects the right to a jury trial. Last month, he scold The Supreme Court objected to hearing Florida’s case using a six-person jury, rather than the traditional, historical practice of using a 12-person jury.
While the current ideologically divisive nature of the Court has attracted much attention; Ellinger It’s not entirely divided along party lines. Dissenters included Justices Samuel Alito, Brett Kavanaugh and Cotanji Brown Jackson, who held: study— and the resulting case law — was the wrong decision. “I recognize that many criminal defendants and their defense attorneys prefer study Jackson wrote, “This system provides some defendants with greater procedural protections at sentencing. However, in my view, the benefits that some criminal defendants derive from their sentences study Rules in which individual cases are offset by negative systemic effects study has happened,” which she said harmed judges and increased sentencing disparities.
“The only thing a judge can do is study Gorsuch countered that “it would increase the penalties a defendant would receive based on his or her own findings of fact.” “Judge Jackson really believes in requiring the government to prove its case with credible evidence (as it acknowledges it must do so) before it can Is it going too far to seek enhanced penalties under the law?[y]’Is it possible for a defendant like Mr Erlinger to face an additional ten years (or more) in prison?
