SCOTUS Rules That Juries Are to Decide on Matter of Enhanced Sentencing
The Supreme Court of the United States has officially ruled to put certain limitations on the way it is determined that defendants in criminal cases meet the Armed Career Criminal Act’s qualifications. This decision came on June 21, 2024. The court ruled that it is up to juries to make the call whether or not a case warrants an enhanced sentence.
Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the majority that a judge can’t take on the duty of finding facts because it is the responsibility of the jury. The opinion took particular issue with the idea that a judge could assume this function while only meeting the standard of preponderance of the evidence. According to Gorsuch, this would be an intrusion on the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.
A Surprising Split
It was a 6-3 ruling that split up the court in an abnormal way. Joining the majority were Justices Neil Gorsuch, Elena Kagan, Clarence Thomas, Amy Coney Barrett, Sonia Sotomayor and Chief Justice John Roberts.
Writing the dissent was Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who was joined in this opinion by Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Samuel Alito.
This decision comes as a result of the case of Paul Erlinger, who was found guilty of four acts of burglary, all committed at the age of 18. For these crimes, Erlinger received a sentence of 15 years in prison.
Because of the fact that there were multiple convictions, Erlinger met the qualifications of the Armed Career Criminal Act to receive an enhanced sentence since he was a felon in possession of a firearm.
Erlinger countered in his argument that the qualifications laid out in this act weren’t met, and thus he shouldn’t be subject to an enhanced sentence. The key point in his defense was that each act of burglary he was convicted of happened on the same occasion.
What Is the Precedent?
This related back to Wooden v. United States, when the Supreme Court justices devised a multifactor test as a way to decide whether the past crimes that a criminal defendant committed should be regarded as one prior offense or count as multiple offenses.
In response to Erlinger’s argument, it was a judge who concluded that all four of his burglaries should each be considered their own separate offense. This qualified him for the minimum mandatory sentence imposed by the ACCA.
The defendant’s argument was rejected by the Seventh Circuit. However, there was no opposition to his Supreme Court appeal.
Ultimately, the government landed on Erlinger’s side. It was agreed that it’s up to the jury to do their own fact-finding in cases where they must make this distinction on how to interpret the Armed Career Criminal Act’s qualifications and thus the past crimes that come into play.
The attorney who represented Erlinger in this matter made the point that the only thing that was being requested was a pivot of the fact-finding duties to the jury, instead of letting the judge take on that role.
The Right to a Jury
The lower court’s attorney made the argument that there was a precedent for judges to maintain authority in proceedings like this.
Gorsuch, however, held a different view. He looked at the precedent set in Apprendi v. New Jersey and came to the complete opposite conclusion: that Erlinger was entitled to a jury. Based on what happened in this case, he found that it must be a jury that finds facts to increase the penalties of a criminal defendant. Gorsuch even pointed out the similarities between Erlinger’s case and Apprendi.
Gorsuch said that when it comes to the question of what should and shouldn’t be considered a separate occasion, a jury should unanimously resolve the issue beyond a reasonable doubt. He also specified that the Supreme Court’s decision did not go beyond that scope.
According to Gorsuch, it is mandated by the Constitution that juries must come up with these answers and not judges. However, he also mentioned that this still might not be enough to ensure that justice is served.
Gorsuch wrote that it might be necessary to assemble a jury of the defendant’s peers to make these types of decisions. This group must come to a unanimous decision even when the facts in question appear to be simple, and they must meet the reasonable doubt standard, which is no easy task.
Gorsuch also expressed concern about the potential to cause prejudice amongst members of the jury when evidence of prior convictions is introduced. The justice also underlined the right to a jury trial as an integral part of a free country.
Chief Justice Roberts, who George W. Bush appointed, agreed with this point and suggested the possibility that Erlinger would fail in the lower courts. According to Roberts, a harmless error review would need to be conducted to determine if the defendant’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights were violated. Roberts wrote that the Seventh Circuit must take another look at where the government disagrees about the harmless nature of the error. It’s a complex issue that may take an experienced criminal defense attorney to understand.
The Role of Recidivism
Writing for the dissent, the Trump-appointed Kavanaugh looked to Almendarez-Torres v. United States from 1998. The justices held in that case that judges or juries were allowed to make this enhanced sentencing decision by considering recidivism, which is the tendency of a convicted criminal to re-offend. The justice said that this case mandated the decision to go to the legislature because recidivism wasn’t involved in this crime and governments have assumed various methodologies when it comes to the application of these types of sentences.
Kavanaugh countered that it would be a sudden shift away from a precedent that has been in place for a long time if it were held to be a requirement of the Constitution that recidivism be considered an element of the crime. Kavanaugh refers to the tradition that either judges or juries are allowed to answer this recidivism question about the defendant.
The Risk of a Prejudiced Jury
Kavanaugh also pointed out the concern of ending up with a prejudiced jury if sentencing enhancements fall on their shoulders. As Kavanaugh put it, juries would be presented with information about the previous crimes of the defendant that could unduly sway their decision on the matter at hand.
Justice Jackson claimed in her dissent that the Apprendi decision was wrong. Jackson believes that it isn’t an overreach in the constitutional authority of Congress to give a judge the power to exercise fact-finding, nor to direct a specific sentence after making such an assessment. Additionally, the justice mentioned that her opinion in this matter has also been shared by numerous jurists and observers.
However, the precedent set in Apprendi is binding. Because of this, Jackson finds it likely impossible to undo. The justice stated that it was this flawed precedent that made her decide not to join the majority to extend the holding of this case.
Contact the Delaware offices of Bauer, Scanlon & Wigginton today for a Pennsylvania criminal defense attorney who will fight for you. Schedule a free initial consultation by calling us at 610-590-5092.