FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
DATE: May 24, 2010
CONTACT: media@famm.org
Supreme Court Rules Machine Gun 30-Mandatory Minimum Cannot Apply Without Jury Say So
WASHINGTON, D.C. – In a victory for defendants and advocates, the U.S. Supreme Court today ruled in United States v. O'Brien, et al. (No 08-1569) that a punitive 30-year mandatory minimum sentence for offenses involving a machine gun may not be imposed unless the defendant is indicted and found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of using a machine gun.
A unanimous court rejected the government's position that the machine gun provision is merely a "sentencing factor." Sentencing factors direct judges to increase sentences for things the defendant was not charged.
“The Court got it right,” said Mary Price, vice president and general counsel of Families Against Mandatory Minimums (FAMM). “The government admitted it could not prove Mr. O’Brien had a machine gun. The court has ruled that the government may not try to sneak the fact in at sentencing and force the judge to sentence the defendant to three decades for a crime the prosecutor could not prove.”
Price also noted that Justices Thomas and Stevens took the opportunity to point out that all facts that trigger mandatory minimums should be treated as offense elements that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury. They took issue in separate concurrences today with the ruling in Harris v. United States, a 2004 case in which FAMM participated. In Harris, a slim majority of the court found that while several mandatory minimums in the gun statute depend on mere sentencing factors, they still must be imposed even though the jury need not find the facts that trigger them. "FAMM agrees with Justices Thomas and Stevens that mandatory minimums can never be imposed on a defendant unless he has the constitutional safeguards of notice and jury findings."
Together with the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, FAMM filed an amicus brief that further explains why the machine gun provision cannot constitutionally be considered other than an offense element. Price also attended oral arguments in the O'Brien case. More information is available here at FAMM’s website.
Families Against Mandatory Minimums is a national nonprofit, nonpartisan organization supporting fair and proportionate sentencing laws that allow judicial discretion while maintaining public safety. For more information on FAMM, visit http://www.famm.org or contact media@famm.org.