U.S. Supreme Court - June 17, 2013
by: Zara Lukens and Abassos • June 17, 2013 • no comments
| (7 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<summary hidden> | <summary hidden> | ||
| + | * ''Salinas v. Texas''-- Mere silence does not invoke the Fifth Amendment | ||
* ''Alleyne v. United States''-- Any fact that increases the mandatory minimum constitutes an element | * ''Alleyne v. United States''-- Any fact that increases the mandatory minimum constitutes an element | ||
</summary> | </summary> | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Mere silence does not invoke the Fifth Amendment''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | A defendant must expressly invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and cannot do so by “simply standing mute.” If a defendant does not expressly invoke the privilege, the prosecution may use defendant’s silence as evidence of guilt. Justice Alito wrote the plurality opinion, in which Roberts and Kennedy joined. Justices Thomas and Scalia concurred in the judgment. [http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-246_7l48.pdf ''Salinas v. Texas''], 570 U.S. __ (June 17, 2013) | ||
'''Any fact that increases the mandatory minimum constitutes an element''' | '''Any fact that increases the mandatory minimum constitutes an element''' | ||
| − | Overruling Harris v. United States, the court finds that an increase in the mandatory minimum sentence constitutes an “element” that must be submitted to the jury. Prior to this decision, an increase in the statutory maximum triggered Apprendi, but an increase in the mandatory minimum did not. Here, the jury form did not indicate that the firearm was “brandished,” but the presentence report recommended a 7-year sentence, consistent with the defendant having brandished the weapon. Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S.__(2013). | + | Overruling ''Harris v. United States'', the court finds that an increase in the mandatory minimum sentence constitutes an “element” that must be submitted to the jury. Prior to this decision, an increase in the statutory maximum triggered [http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4053038751252355308&q=apprendi&hl=en&as_sdt=2,38 ''Apprendi''], but an increase in the mandatory minimum did not. Here, the jury form did not indicate that the firearm was “brandished,” but the presentence report recommended a 7-year sentence, consistent with the defendant having brandished the weapon. [http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-9335_b8cf.pdf ''Alleyne v. United States''], 570 U.S. __ (June 17, 2013). |
{{wl-publish: 2013-06-17 16:46:29 -0700 | Zlukens }} | {{wl-publish: 2013-06-17 16:46:29 -0700 | Zlukens }} | ||
| + | {{wl-publish: 2013-06-17 16:46:29 -0700 | abassos}} | ||
Latest revision as of 15:51, August 18, 2013
Mere silence does not invoke the Fifth Amendment
A defendant must expressly invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and cannot do so by “simply standing mute.” If a defendant does not expressly invoke the privilege, the prosecution may use defendant’s silence as evidence of guilt. Justice Alito wrote the plurality opinion, in which Roberts and Kennedy joined. Justices Thomas and Scalia concurred in the judgment. Salinas v. Texas, 570 U.S. __ (June 17, 2013)
Any fact that increases the mandatory minimum constitutes an element
Overruling Harris v. United States, the court finds that an increase in the mandatory minimum sentence constitutes an “element” that must be submitted to the jury. Prior to this decision, an increase in the statutory maximum triggered Apprendi, but an increase in the mandatory minimum did not. Here, the jury form did not indicate that the firearm was “brandished,” but the presentence report recommended a 7-year sentence, consistent with the defendant having brandished the weapon. Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. __ (June 17, 2013).
