About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

1 1 (June 27, 2019)

handle is hein.crs/govbafo0001 and id is 1 raw text is: A Congressional ______ *.Research Service Which Punishment Fits Which Crime?: Supreme Court to Consider Whether Portion of Supervised Release Statute is Unconstitutional Updated June 27, 2019 UPDATE: On June 26, 2019, the Supreme Court issued its decision in United States v. Haymond, with five Justices agreeing that applying 18 US. C. § 3583(k) with respect to the defendant's conduct was unconstitutional. Justice Gorsuch, writing for a plurality offour Justices, observed that Section 3583(k) permitted the judge in the defendant's case, rather than the jury, to find facts that resulted in the defendant 'fac[ingJ a minimum offive years in prison instead of as little as none. For the plurality, this judicial fact-finding increased 'the legally prescribed range of allowable sentences'in violation of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. The plurality limited its opinion to Section 3583(k)'s unusual mandatory-minimum sentencing provision for certain violations ofsupervised release conditions as it applied in the case before the Court, opting not to pass judgment on ordinary supervised release revocation proceedings that typically involve judicial discretion and lack a mandatory-minimum sentencing requirement. In a separate opinion, Justice Breyer, writing only for himself agreed that Section 3583(k) was unconstitutional but underscored that he did not see a problem with the ordinary supervised-release regime and would not apply the Court's Sixth Amendment jurisprudence to that regime more broadly. In Justice Breyer's view, three aspects ofSection 3583(k) specifically, considered in combination, rendered it distinct from ordinary revocation and more like punishment for a new offense, to which the jury right would typically attach : (1) that it applies only when a defendant commits one ofa discrete set offederal criminal offenses specified in the statute ; (2) that it removes the judge's discretion with respect to imprisonment and term length; and (3) that it imposes a mandatory-minimum term of imprisonment upon afinding that commission of a listed criminal offense occurred. Having concluded that Section 3583(k-)'s mandatory-minimum provision violated the defendant's right to a jury trial, the plurality and Justice Breyer agreed that the court of appeals should be given the opportunity, in the first instance, to address the government's argument that the proper remedy would not be to strike down the relevant portion of Section 3583(k), but rather would be to empanel a jury to decide Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov LSB10221 CRS Legal Sidebar Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most