Supreme Court leans toward jury review for career criminal sentences

WASHINGTON (CN) — An Indiana man made inroads at the Supreme Court on Wednesday in his quest to dodge a 15-year prison sentence. 

A coalition of justices appeared to agree with Paul Erlinger’s argument that a jury — not a judge — should decide whether a criminal defendant’s prior offenses qualify them for enhanced sentences Under the Armed Career Criminal Act. 

Under the Armed Career Criminal Act, felons in possession of a firearm can face a mandatory minimum sentence of 15 years in prison if they have three previous convictions for violent crimes or drug offenses. 

A judge sentenced Erlinger under the law’s mandatory minimum sentence based on the convictions for four burglaries he committed when he was 18 years old. Erlinger claims the four burglaries were not committed on different occasions and therefore cannot be used to sentence him under the law. 

In Wooden v. United States, the justices were asked to decide when a criminal defendant’s prior crimes counted as a single prior offense versus multiple offenses. In the 2022 ruling, the court adopted a multifactor inquiry to decide if prior crimes occurred during a single occasion. 

Erlinger argues the judge violated the Sixth Amendment by engaging in judicial fact-finding. These arguments were rejected by the lower court and Seventh Circuit, which said the 1991 charging documents could be used to decide if Erlinger’s prior offenses could count under the Armed Career Criminal Act. 

“Just move the fact-finding from the judge over to the jury, I don't think it's very much to ask,” said Jeffrey Fisher, an attorney with O’Melveny & Myers representing Erlinger. 

The government — which opposes Erlinger below — argued in his favor before the high court. Eric Feigin, deputy solicitor general at the Justice Department, urged the justices to issue a narrow ruling 

“I don’t take this as a particularly complicated inquiry; it's a common sense one,” Feigin said. 

Some justices disagreed with Feigin’s characterization. Justice Samuel Alito, a George W. Bush appointee, quibbled with how a jury would decide the multifactor inquiry presented in Wooden. 

“Materiality, I can't think of something offhand … that's quite as multidimensional and nuanced as this,” Alito said. 

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a Joe Biden appointee, shared similar concerns. Jackson drew on her experience as a public defender, noting complex indictments she reviewed. She said juries would have to balance the facts of the current case and the facts of prior offenses. 

“I’m trying to understand how today’s jury adjudicates past crime facts,” Jackson said. 

Despite these concerns, Justice Elena Kagan, a Barack Obama appointee, said the government has already had four of these types of trials. 

“There's been some talk about how difficult this is going to be for everybody,” Kagan said. “Was it?” 

The government said that it would prefer not to go that route but doing so had been manageable in the past. 

Since the government agreed with Erlinger, the court appointed an amicus to argue in favor of the lower court’s ruling. Nick Harper, an attorney with Gibson Dunn, said the court’s precedent allows judges to find certain facts about prior offenses. 

Harper said the lower court’s ruling was supported by historical precedent. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a Donald Trump appointee, picked up on this argument and suggested there was a historical precedent for not having juries review a defendant’s prior crimes because it would prejudice the defendant. 

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, a Barack Obama appointee, noted her distaste for historical comparisons. She said there are always exceptions to historical examples and then the court has to decide how many exceptions are acceptable. 

“When we start talking about history I get very annoyed,” Sotomayor said. 

Kavanaugh said the court had no choice but to look elsewhere if the Constitution’s text didn’t provide an answer to their question. 

“We usually look to history,” Kavanaugh said. “We might not like it but unless we’re just making it up, I don’t know where else we’re going to look.” 

The court will issue a ruling by the end of June. 

Follow @KelseyReichmann

Subscribe to Closing Arguments

Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.

Email *

Submit