Opinion ID: 3034029
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Findings by a Preponderance of the Evidence

Text: The trial judge found that Dare discharged the weapon intentionally, and as part of a drug transaction, but only by a preponderance of the evidence. The trial judge specifically held that if the standard were clear and convincing (a lower standard than beyond a reasonable doubt) he would not find Dare so discharged the firearm. Blakely and Booker teach us not only that a defendant is entitled under the Sixth Amendment to have a jury find all facts which enhance his sentence above the statutory maximum, but also that the defendant is entitled to have those facts found beyond a reasonable doubt. Other than the fact of a prior conviction, 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. Blakely, 542 U.S. ___, 124 S. Ct. at 2536 (quoting Apprendi, 530 U.S. at 490). Because the judge found the prosecution did not prove Dare discharged the firearm by clear and convincing evidence, he necessarily found the prosecution did not prove Dare discharged the firearm beyond a reasonable doubt. “The intermediate standard of clear and convincing evidence lies between a preponderance of the evidence and proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” Kenyeres v. Ashcroft, 538 U.S. 1301, 1305 (U.S. 2003) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). It is understandable that the judge found it more likely than not that Dare discharged the shotgun into the air in an attempt to intimidate his visitors into not reporting him to the authorities. But it is just as understandable that the judge did not find this fact by clear and convincing evidence, let alone beyond a reasonable doubt, given that Dare was highly intoxicated, and had the peculiar custom of showing off by firing his shotgun when visitors came calling. In fact, shooting his shotgun UNITED STATES v. DARE 13647 was such a non-event to Dare that he didn’t even remember it happened until the Magistrate told him. Accordingly, we should remand this case to the trial judge with instructions to impose a new sentence under the nowdiscretionary Sentencing Guidelines based solely on his finding that Dare possessed the firearm, a crime that entails a statutory minimum sentence of five years, not ten. 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(i).