Statements (65)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| gptkbp:instance_of |
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
|
| gptkbp:argued_on |
Jury's role in determining facts for sentencing
Mandatory minimum sentences based on judge's findings |
| gptkbp:case_analysis |
Examined in law reviews
Analyzed for its constitutional implications Discussed in legal textbooks Analyzed for implications on future cases Cited in subsequent court decisions Considered in debates on criminal justice reform Discussed in relation to judicial activism Discussion in legal ethics courses Effect on judicial discretion in sentencing Examined for its impact on defendants' rights Impact on mandatory minimum laws Impact on plea bargaining practices Impact on the rights of convicted individuals Impact on the role of judges in sentencing Implications for parole and probation decisions Influence on federal sentencing guidelines Influence on the balance of power in the judiciary Influenced legal arguments in similar cases Referenced in constitutional law discussions Studied in criminal law courses Cited in arguments for reducing incarceration rates Referenced in discussions on sentencing disparities Influence on the interpretation of the Sixth Amendment. |
| gptkbp:case_number |
17-1672
|
| gptkbp:case_outcome |
5-4 decision
Invalidated certain sentencing enhancements |
| gptkbp:case_types |
Criminal law case
|
| gptkbp:consequences |
Influenced future sentencing laws
|
| gptkbp:decided_by |
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
June 26, 2019 |
| gptkbp:dissenting_opinion |
gptkb:Justice_Samuel_Alito
Public safety concerns Judicial discretion in sentencing |
| gptkbp:held_in |
The Court held that the imposition of a mandatory minimum sentence based on facts not found by a jury violated the Sixth Amendment.
|
| https://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label |
United States v. Haymond
|
| gptkbp:impact |
Influenced state sentencing laws
Led to discussions on sentencing reform |
| gptkbp:involved_parties |
Michael Haymond (Respondent)
United States (Petitioner) |
| gptkbp:is_cited_in |
588 U. S. ___ (2019)
|
| gptkbp:jurisdiction |
Federal jurisdiction
|
| gptkbp:legal_context |
Federal sentencing law
|
| gptkbp:legal_issue |
Constitutionality of mandatory minimum sentences
|
| gptkbp:legal_outcome |
Reversed and remanded
|
| gptkbp:legal_principle |
gptkb:Separation_of_powers
Due process rights Right to a jury trial |
| gptkbp:legislation |
gptkb:First_Step_Act
gptkb:Sentencing_Reform_Act Justice Safety Valve Act |
| gptkbp:precedent |
Impact on sentencing guidelines
Reinforced jury's role in criminal justice |
| gptkbp:public_perception |
gptkb:Justice_Sonia_Sotomayor
|
| gptkbp:public_reaction |
Mixed reactions from legal scholars
Criticism from law enforcement groups Support from civil rights advocates |
| gptkbp:related_cases |
gptkb:Apprendi_v._New_Jersey
gptkb:Alleyne_v._United_States gptkb:Blakely_v._Washington |
| gptkbp:significance |
Significant for Sixth Amendment rights
|
| gptkbp:bfsParent |
gptkb:Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg
|
| gptkbp:bfsLayer |
3
|