Opinion ID: 1439456
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Submission of Statutory Aggravating Factors to the Grand Jury

Text: Honken argues the penalty provisions of the ADAA, 21 U.S.C. § 848(e)-(r), are unconstitutional after Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 122 S.Ct. 2428, 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002), because the ADAA grants authority to allege aggravating factors exclusively to the prosecutor, while the Constitution requires that such elements be presented to a grand jury and charged in an indictment. In Ring, the Supreme Court held the Sixth Amendment does not allow[] a sentencing judge, sitting without a jury, to find an aggravating circumstance necessary for imposition of the death penalty. Ring, 536 U.S. at 609, 122 S.Ct. 2428. Instead, the Sixth Amendment requires that [such aggravating factors] be found by a jury. Id. Interpreting Ring, our court further extrapolated, although  Ring did not address whether the Fifth Amendment also requires capital aggravating factors to be found by the grand jury and included in the indictment ... we think that Ring necessarily implies such a Fifth Amendment requirement. United States v. Allen, 406 F.3d 940, 942 (8th Cir.2005) (en banc). Thus, the Fifth Amendment requires at least one statutory aggravating factor and the mens rea requirement to be found by the grand jury and charged in the indictment. Id. at 943 (citations omitted). Consistent with Ring and Allen, the government in Honken's case included the aggravating factors in a superseding indictment, and the grand jury returned a superseding indictment which included all the aggravating factors ultimately found by the petit jury. Honken next charges the government was not permitted to amend the ADAA by submitting aggravating factors to the grand jury and including them in the indictment. Honken contends, because the ADAA contemplates the government will file a separate notice of statutory aggravating factors, the government is thereby prohibited from submitting the same aggravating factors to the grand jury, and such a prohibition is unconstitutional under Ring. In Allen, we rejected the precise contention Honken makes here, explaining: While it is true that the FDPA directs the government to charge these factors in a notice of intent to seek the death penalty, nothing in the Act precludes the government from also submitting them to the grand jury for inclusion in the indictment. This is the practice that the Department of Justice has adopted after Ring, and it preserves the constitutionality of FDPA prosecutions. [23] Allen, 406 F.3d at 949 (citations omitted) (emphasis added). In Purkey, we reaffirmed our holding in Allen. Purkey, 428 F.3d at 748-49. Like the FDPA, nothing in the ADAA inhibits the government's ability to submit aggravating factors to the grand jury for inclusion in the indictment. Therefore we reject Honken's argument the penalty provisions of the ADAA are unconstitutional.