Apprendi v. New Jersey
E649382
Apprendi v. New Jersey is a landmark 2000 U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that any fact (other than a prior conviction) that increases a criminal defendant’s sentence beyond the statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Apprendi v. New Jersey canonical | 7 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T7193346 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Apprendi v. New Jersey Context triple: [United States v. Booker, relatedCase, Apprendi v. New Jersey]
-
A.
Nebbia v. New York
Nebbia v. New York is a 1934 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld state regulation of milk prices and marked a major retreat from the Lochner-era limits on economic regulation under the Due Process Clause.
-
B.
Twining v. New Jersey
Twining v. New Jersey is a 1908 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination did not apply to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, a position later rejected by the Court.
-
C.
Murdock v. Pennsylvania
Murdock v. Pennsylvania is a 1943 U.S. Supreme Court case that held it unconstitutional to impose a license tax on the distribution of religious literature, reinforcing First Amendment protections for religious proselytizing.
-
D.
Eisenstadt v. Baird
Eisenstadt v. Baird is a landmark 1972 U.S. Supreme Court decision that extended the right to possess and use contraceptives to unmarried individuals, significantly advancing privacy and equal protection jurisprudence.
-
E.
Lau v. Nichols
Lau v. Nichols is a landmark 1974 U.S. Supreme Court case that held public schools must take affirmative steps to help non-English-speaking students overcome language barriers to ensure equal educational opportunity under federal civil rights law.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Apprendi v. New Jersey Target entity description: Apprendi v. New Jersey is a landmark 2000 U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that any fact (other than a prior conviction) that increases a criminal defendant’s sentence beyond the statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
-
A.
Nebbia v. New York
Nebbia v. New York is a 1934 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld state regulation of milk prices and marked a major retreat from the Lochner-era limits on economic regulation under the Due Process Clause.
-
B.
Twining v. New Jersey
Twining v. New Jersey is a 1908 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination did not apply to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, a position later rejected by the Court.
-
C.
Murdock v. Pennsylvania
Murdock v. Pennsylvania is a 1943 U.S. Supreme Court case that held it unconstitutional to impose a license tax on the distribution of religious literature, reinforcing First Amendment protections for religious proselytizing.
-
D.
Eisenstadt v. Baird
Eisenstadt v. Baird is a landmark 1972 U.S. Supreme Court decision that extended the right to possess and use contraceptives to unmarried individuals, significantly advancing privacy and equal protection jurisprudence.
-
E.
Lau v. Nichols
Lau v. Nichols is a landmark 1974 U.S. Supreme Court case that held public schools must take affirmative steps to help non-English-speaking students overcome language barriers to ensure equal educational opportunity under federal civil rights law.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (48)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
United States Supreme Court case
ⓘ
criminal procedure case ⓘ sentencing case ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
constitutional criminal procedure
ⓘ
sentencing law ⓘ |
| citation |
120 S. Ct. 2348
ⓘ
147 L. Ed. 2d 435 ⓘ 530 U.S. 466 ⓘ |
| concurringInPartAndConcurringInJudgmentBy | Clarence Thomas ⓘ |
| constitutionalProvisionInterpreted |
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
ⓘ
linked to:
Fourteenth Amendment
Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution ⓘ
linked to:
U.S. Constitution, Sixth Amendment
|
| country |
United States
ⓘ
linked to:
United States of America
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 2000-06-26 ⓘ |
| decisionType | landmark decision ⓘ |
| dissentingJustices |
Clarence Thomas
ⓘ
Sandra Day O’Connor ⓘ Stephen G. Breyer ⓘ William H. Rehnquist ⓘ |
| docketNumber | No. 99-478 ⓘ |
| holding |
Any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
ⓘ
The rule does not apply to the fact of a prior conviction. ⓘ |
| influencedCase |
Alleyne v. United States
ⓘ
Blakely v. Washington ⓘ Ring v. Arizona ⓘ United States v. Booker ⓘ |
| jurisdiction |
United States
ⓘ
linked to:
United States of America
|
| keyPrinciple |
Distinction between elements of an offense and sentencing factors is constitutionally significant when it increases the statutory maximum.
ⓘ
Legislatures may not evade the jury-trial requirement by labeling elements as sentencing factors. ⓘ |
| languageOfDecision | English ⓘ |
| legalIssue |
Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
ⓘ
linked to:
Due Process Clause
Sixth Amendment right to jury trial ⓘ sentencing enhancement ⓘ |
| majorityJustices |
Anthony M. Kennedy
ⓘ
Antonin Scalia ⓘ David H. Souter ⓘ John Paul Stevens ⓘ Ruth Bader Ginsburg ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy | John Paul Stevens ⓘ |
| originatingCourt |
New Jersey state courts
ⓘ
linked to:
Judiciary of New Jersey
|
| overruledOrLimitedPrecedent | McMillan v. Pennsylvania ⓘ |
| petitioner | Charles C. Apprendi, Jr. ⓘ |
| relatedDoctrine |
beyond a reasonable doubt standard
ⓘ
jury fact-finding requirement ⓘ |
| respondent |
State of New Jersey
ⓘ
linked to:
New Jersey, United States
|
| result | New Jersey hate-crime enhancement statute held unconstitutional as applied ⓘ |
| subjectMatter | hate-crime sentencing enhancement under New Jersey law ⓘ |
| term | October Term 1999 ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: Apprendi v. New Jersey Description of subject: Apprendi v. New Jersey is a landmark 2000 U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that any fact (other than a prior conviction) that increases a criminal defendant’s sentence beyond the statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
Referenced by (7)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.
United States Supreme Court cases of the Rehnquist Court
→
significantCase
→
Apprendi v. New Jersey
ⓘ