Document: 526 U.S. 227119 S.Ct. 1215143 L.Ed.2d 311 JONES v. UNITED STATES(97-6203)116 F.3d 1487, reversed and remanded. SUPREME COURT OF THE STATES119 No. 97 6203 NATHANIEL JONES, PETITIONER STATES ON WRIT CERTIORARI TO APPEALS FOR NINTH CIRCUIT [March 24, 1999] Justice Souter delivered the opinion of Court. 1 This case turns on whether federal carjacking statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2119 as it was when petitioner charged, defined three distinct offenses or a single crime with choice maximum penalties, two them dependent sentencing factors exempt from requirements charge jury verdict. We think better reading is offenses, particularly in light rule that any interpretive uncertainty should be resolved to avoid serious questions about statute's constitutionality. 2 * In December 1992, petitioner, Nathaniel Jones, others, Oliver McMillan, held up men, Mutanna Mardaie. While Jones McMillan went through victims' pockets, stuck his gun Mutanna's left ear, later struck him head. made their getaway Cadillac had driven scene, while forced Mardaie into Honda drove off after them. After stopping put out, sped away stolen car subject police pursuit, which ended crashed telephone pole. United States Oliver, 60 547, 549 (CA9 1995); Tr. 159, 387, 310 (July 27 28, 1993). 3 A grand Eastern District California indicted accomplices counts: using aiding abetting use firearm during relation violence, violation 924(c), carjacking, then read follows: 4 "Whoever, possessing section 921 this title, takes motor vehicle has been transported, shipped, received interstate foreign commerce person presence another by force violence intimidation, attempts do so, shall 5 "(1) fined under title imprisoned not more than 15 years, both, 6 "(2) if bodily injury (as 1365 title) results, 25 7 "(3) death for number years life, both." (1988 ed., Supp. V).1 8 The indictment no reference numbered subsections charged none facts mentioned latter two, at arraignment Magistrate Judge told he faced sentence charge. App. 5, 7. Consistently advice, Court's subsequent instructions elements Government's burden proof solely first paragraph §2119, mention injury. Id., 10. found guilty both counts. 9 took new turn, however, arrival presentence report, recommended sentenced because one victims suffered report noted testified Oliver's caused profuse bleeding physician concluded perforated eardrum, some numbness permanent hearing loss. 16; F.3d, 554. objected 25-year recommendation out bounds, since an element offense part §2119(2), neither pleaded nor proven before jury. 12 13. Court saw matter differently and, based its finding allegation supported preponderance evidence, imposed count, ibid., together consecutive 5-year offense, 549. 10 Like trial court, Appeals did §2119(2) setting independent offense.2 551 Ninth Circuit thus agreed Eleventh, see Williams, 51 1004, 1009 1010 (1995), reasoning structure grammatical dependence paragraph, demonstrated Congress's understanding complete definitions separate crimes. 552 553. For view provided factors, court additional support legislative history. heading subtitle bill creating §2119 "Enhanced Penalties Auto Theft," indicating merely enhancements. also several references Committee Reports floor debate enhanced penalties apparently offense. Ibid. Because features arguably distinguishing Almendarez-Torres States, 523 224 (1998), we granted certiorari, 1045 now reverse. II 11 Much determination fact rather consideration, given must indictment, submitted jury, Government beyond reasonable doubt. See, e.g., Hamling 418 87, 117 (1974); Gaudin, 515 506, 509 510 (1995). Accordingly, statutes come benefit provisions straightforwardly addressing distinction between factors. See Pennsylvania, 477 79, 85 86 (1986) (express identification statutory provision factor). Even without such help, glance look suggesting are only provisions. It begins principal listing series obvious (possession firearm, taking vehicle, connection commerce, so on). That comes close standing own, followed provisions, which, subsection (1), certainly adds further element. But superficial impression loses clarity looks penalty (2) (3). These provide steeply higher but condition (injury, death) seem quite important (e.g., intimidation). best questionable specification sufficient increase range two-thirds, let alone meant carry process safeguards bring defendant's benefit. "look" then, reliable guide congressional intentions, accordingly advances subtle structural arguments position specified factor. Appeals, stresses stand defining most whose anyone's reckoning set opening paragraph. integrated said suggest statute establishes To same point, argues word "shall," often divides offense-defining those specify sentences. Brief 18. these points sound enough far they go, short dispositive even own terms, whereas weakened here countervailing considerations. First, notes, Reply Petitioner 2, shorter does alone, section's voluminous isolation, would describe very obnoxious behavior, leaving reader assuming crime, never being actually is. Only subsidiary thought. Section unlike criminal code, genuinely feet thanks phrases "shall unlawful," see, 922(g), punished," §511A(a), of," 514 (1994 II), draw close. Second, significance although frequently separates clauses hardly invariably. One robbery served model §2119,3 2118(a)(3), (b)(3), example, places either side "shall." And, course, where supposedly "elements" itself grammatically incomplete here), placement "shall" oddly equivocal. Indeed, Courts treat perhaps closely resembling one, §1365(a) (consumer tampering), basic aggravated terms Meling, 47 1546, 1551 1995). 13 clues derived attention parsing wording, like dissent holds distinguish act upon modeled state statutes, post, 9, 11, turn move us our effort infer intent. text justify confident inference. drafting occurs against backdrop conventions varying significance, traditional treatment certain categories facts, degree particular If unclear treating aggravator, makes sense what other have done, fair assumption Congress unlikely intend radical departures past practice making point saying so. 14 engaged just enquiry Term Almendarez-Torres, stressed history recidivism factor, that, exception, clearly prior conviction conduct, absence recidivism, independently unlawful. U.S., 230. Here, contrary, search comparable examples readily suggests mind employed scheme §2119. Although explicitly treated 2262(b)(2) (interstate protection order); §248(b)(2) (free access clinic entrances; injury), unmistakably identified 928(b)(2) (assault member armed forces); 37(a)(1) (violence international airports); §1091(a)(2) (genocide). likelihood understood follows all type robbery, traditionally treated, legislatures, robbery. As acknowledges, 20 21, n. 8, statutes.4 them, 2118 (robbery involving controlled substances), causing provides "[w]hoever take intimidation [of substances] twenty (1) replacement cost [controlled substance] less $500, . (3) killed significant result attempt." §2118(a)(3); §2118(b)(3).5 second model, §2113 (bank robbery), concedes, 17, related is, assault jeopardizing life dangerous weapon, form §§2113(d), (e); cf. supra, 231 (citing bank example establishing greater lesser included offenses); 88 (contrasting §2113(d) enhancement). When pressed oral argument, proved unable explain why might chosen harm used models different writing itself, Oral Arg. 41 44, imagine convincing reason ourselves. say earlier probably intended crime. 16 State bolsters conclusion. Many causation Ala. Code §13A 41(a)(2) (1994) "serious physical injury"); Alaska Stat. Ann. §11.41.500(a)(3) (1996) (same); Ark. §5 103 (1997) (aggravated robbery; "[i]nflicts inflict Conn. Gen. §53a 134(a)(1) degree; "[c]auses Iowa §711.2 (1993) "purposely inflicts Kans. §21 3427 (1995) "inflicts harm"); Ky. Rev. §515.020(1)(a) (Michie 1990) "causes N. H. §636:1(III)(c) (class felony "[i]nflicted attempted Y. Penal Law §160.15 (McKinney 1988) Ore. §164.415(1)(c) (1990) cause Tex. §29.03(a)(1) Utah §76 302(1)(b) Wash. §9A.56.200(1)(c) injury"). not, admittedly, direct authority show element, treading well-worn path. 17 Despite indications equivocal clues, 1996 amendment supports previously enacted. Carjacking Correction Act 1996, 110 3020, term injury" include sexual abuse §§2241 2242. statements amendment's described providing "penalty enhancement," R. Rep. 104 787, pp. (1996), showing defines disposed authority, find quoted unimpressive. Assuming enhancement" synonymous "sentencing factor," contains contrary sponsors, established trial. 142 Cong. Rec. S9154 30, 1996) (statement Sen. Biden) ("[T]he defendant convicted raping woman") (emphasis added). seems occasion doubt "subsequent 'hazardous basis inferring intent earlier' Congress." Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation LTV Corp., 496 633, 650 (quoting Price, 361 304, 313 (1960)). leeriness relying hindsight expressed confirmed recognizing oddity there elements, abuse, time consideration. Nor attracted helpful Government. refer augmentation law singular, plural, speaking "crime" "offense" singular. 102 851, pt. 1, p. (1992); 138 32500 (1992) Dingell). make singular-plural circumstances. Characterizing cluster enacting something singular signify good deal speakers writers were mattered. doing passages cited, couched occur discussions issue versus confront here. So, slight. On history, add nothing favorable statement House Report explaining drafters drew referred early version lacked forms 17. suggestion looked settled language contained strange guidance beginning forget somewhat context, "might abandoned [those] ready models" developing fully elaborated ultimately adopted. 8. III 19 fairest treats mere enhancement, recognize possibility view. Any prompted should, rule, repeatedly affirmed, "where susceptible constructions, grave doubtful constitutional arise avoided, duty adopt latter." ex rel. Attorney General Delaware & Hudson Co., 213 366, 408 (1909); Jin Fuey Moy, 241 394, 401 (1916). "out respect Congress, assume legislates limitations," Rust Sullivan, 500 173, 191 (1991), adhere principle, "has long applied debate." Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. Florida Gulf Coast Building Constr. Trades Council, 485 568, 575 (1988); X-Citement Video, Inc., 513 64, 78 (1994). construe it, open cases over quarter century, dealing due guarantee these, Mullaney Wilbur, 421 684 (1975), reviewed Maine murder malice (in want provocation, Patterson New York, 432 197, 215 (1977)) presumed kill resulting death, right rebuttal acted provocation heat passion, reduce manslaughter. Mullaney, 686, 3. challenge presumption relieved prove every doubt, explained re Winship, 397 358, 364 (1970). replied formalistic, State's effect generic felonious homicide, 688, 696 697, gone simply sentence, Winship controlling. declined accord license recharacterize issue, odds centuries-old common recognition manslaughter widely modern once raised burden, 692 696, unlimited characterizing stated leave substantially free manipulate way U. S., 698. 21 Two Terms later, ruled intent, affirmative defense extreme emotional disturbance explanation. 205 206. Unlike Maine's law, York's malice; omitted murder. contended affected severity required rejected argument "decline[d] imperative disprove constituting defenses culpability accused." 210. establish essential ingredient curse "shifting persuasion deems impermissible Due Process Clause." 215. With caveat, therefore, choose define crimes, impediment Winship. caveat limit reallocate proof, 210, easily satisfied "at proving" mitigating circumstances severe "rested defendant." 202; id., 211; 693 694. narrow ban presumptions nominal, broader equally open, discretion omit "traditional" definition crimes instead require accused elements. 22 allocation implications charging obligation requisite quantum succeeded 79 (1986), rose judge's (by preponderance) visible possession mandatory minimum felonies, fell within ranges otherwise prescribed. petitioner's claim insofar depended (and well), observe exposed fact. 88. 23 notable acknowledging question factfinding raises range, disposing Pennsylvania violated Sixth Amendment well. "ultimate concerning committed," 93, back discussion, discussion broached potential ceiling. 24 recognizes Clause Fourteenth Sixth: waived, may judicial application increases variant crime? seriousness evident Mullaney's insistence cannot Patterson's burdens proof; substantiality practical indifference sets element.6 illustrate well stake. factor (increasing authorized thirds, years), presumably life). rise nonjury determination, jury's role correspondingly shrink usually carried determinations guilt relative importance low-level gatekeeping: cases, necessary 15-year door imprisonment. therefore trivial ask power authorize ultimate limits invite erosion function line necessarily drawn. 26 requires bearing Framers' principle accepted tolerance exclusively peg limits. sure, scholarship aware exactly ever period Framing. hand, studies demonstrate general level tension powers likely much fore conception right. exemplifying elevate unsurprising, breadth fines corporal punishment important, misdemeanor, Baker, Introduction English Legal History 584 (3d ed. 1990); W. Blackstone, Commentaries Laws England 372 (1769) (hereinafter Blackstone); Preyer, Measures American Colonies: An Overview, Am. Hist. 326, 350 (1982), norm fixed sentences felony, Langbein, Criminal Trial Jury Eve French Revolution, England, France, Germany 1700 1900, 36 37 (A. Schioppa 1987); Blackstone 238 239; A. Scott, Colonial Virginia 106 (1930). 28 system, competition developed judge real respective roles. inevitable indirectly checked juries' assertions prosecution pointed political endowed sanguinary consequences. thwart Parliament Crown flat-out acquittals face today call verdicts manifestations "pious perjury" jurors' part. 239.7 29 Countervailing measures diminish naturally forthcoming, ensuing responses mother country colonies validate, though answer, raise. government's parliamentary barring new, offenses. Frankfurter Corcoran, Petty Federal Offenses Constitutional Jury, 39 Harv. L. 917, 925 930 (1926); 277 279. extended violations Stamp recurred regulating imperial trade, C. Ubbelohde, Vice-Admiralty Revolution 74 80 (1960); Wroth, Massachusetts Vice Admiralty Court, Authority America 32, 50 (G. Billias 1965), occasions protest Declaration Independence deprivation trial, P. Maier, Scripture 118 (1997). Declaration, revolutionary voice Continental protested practice, words America. proceedings "of late extended," warned 1760's, "as, check timely given, threaten disuse admirable truly jury." 278. Identifying "the bulwark" liberties, liberties remain secure "so palladium remains sacred inviolate, attacks, (which will hardy make) secret machinations, sap undermine it; introducing arbitrary methods justices peace, commissioners revenue, courts conscience. And however convenient appear first, doubtless powers, executed, convenient), yet again remembered, delays, little inconveniences justice, price nations pay liberty substantial matters." 342 344. 30 response control outcomes occurred confine libel findings fact, judges apply thus, opportunities juror nullification. Ultimately, attempt failed, victory embodied Fox's Libel Britain, generally T. Green, Verdict According Conscience 318 355 (1985), exemplified John Peter Zenger's acquittal Colonies, Rakove, Original Meanings 300 302 (1996). denouement restrictive efforts juries control, focus principally verdict, applying (or "finding" 301), itself.8 There too prerogative trifled courts.9 minds Framers cavil. leading account was, possible exception known source libertarian thought eighteenth century." Levy, Freedom Speech Press Early 133 (1963). Americans perfectly lesson could lost gross denial, erosion. 17-20. contributor ratification debates, commenting Art. III, §2, echoed warning need "to guard jealous circumspection introduction variety plausible pretenses, time, imperceptibly preservative LIBERTY." [New Hampshire] Farmer, 3, June 6, 1788, Complete Bill Rights (N. Cogan 1997). 31 sum, suppose present circumstances, peculiar details place, diminution merit concern. anyone jury; intention questioning resolution. diminishment removing determining resonate claims controversies, raise genuine settled. 32 Our issues means boards calls McMillan. decided last Term, stands proposition expanding precise holding increasing charged. here, concerned rights notice claimed rested tradition regarding indictment. repeated emphasis distinctive leaves regarded potentially distinguishable purposes extend sentencing. 230 ("At outset, note relevant recidivism"); ibid. ("With mind, language"); 243 ("First, traditional, court's offender's sentence"); 245 (distinguishing "in recidivism"). distinctiveness hard see: virtually consideration enlarge case, procedures satisfying notice, guarantees. cannot, resolve implicated urges.10 33 capital Spaziano Florida, 468 447 (1984), sort case. addressed task ground appropriate disposition, alternative alternatives. 459. 34 few Hildwin 490 638 (1989) (per curiam), death-qualifying aggravating entrusted judge, following verdict violating Amendment's clause. citing 639 640, expressly imposition sentences, expand available analogy sound, drive answer Hildwin, engaging least proved. can resolving discussed Walton Arizona, 497 (1990), confirms. 35 dealt slightly expansive Spaziano, underlying rejection cited characterized nature quoting Poland 476 147, 156 (1986). 648. There, specifications "standards imprisonment." Poland, (internal quotation marks omitted)). falling scope penalty, raising ceiling available. frank emphasize careful Walton's rationale meaning squarely faced. precedent dispositive. construction hence favor avoiding questions.11 done construing each judgment reversed, remanded consistent opinion. ordered. Notes 38 1. amended 1994 1996. Violent Crime Control Enforcement 1994, deleted phrase replaced phrase, "with harm." §60003(a)(14), 108 1970. committed includes assaults. 3020. 2. vacated portion decision 555 556 remand, reduced total affirmed. 43; 116 1487 40 4, infra. 4. Legislative identifies models. ("The tracks (18 2111 2113, 2118)"). areas maritime territorial jurisdiction), lacks altogether, 42 5. dissent, passing, §2118(a) section, offers reading. Given punishment, eligibility contingent establishment injury, sensible one. 43 6. chides failing precisely animating construed Government, violate Constitution. 14, preceding expresses plainly enough, re-state here: Fifth guarantees Amendment, (other conviction) concern rises certainty. Contrary dissent's suggestion, drives "call[s] legislature." Post, omitted). give restrict ability legislatures identify conduct wish characterize liability. figure analysis identity liability determine permissible punishment; going formality factfinder, proof. 44 Shaping Eighteenth-Century Trial, Chi. 22, 52 54 (1983); 41, 48 49 1987). Goebell Naughton, York 673 674 (1944); Bennet, Brevard (S. 1815). 45 deciders 1628 Coke. E. Coke, Institutes 155b (1628) ("ad questionem facti non respondent judices; ad juris juratores"). Germany, 34, 60. jury-restrictive recognized matters King Francklin, How. St. 626, 672 (K.B. 1731) ("These [publication having ascribed them] your consideration; you proper judges. third thing, wit, Whether defamatory expressions amount not? belong office Court; fact; judges"). Thus participants struggle autonomy seditious viewed extent law-finding power, unquestioned determiner factual issues. 319 (1985). Some influential jurists suggested seen namely, Holdsworth, 680 683 (1938). 46 9. 354 (jurors stop special wished). insists "controls us," 13, 18, substantiating assertion, tellingly relies heavily dissenters majority. Neither bears current If, suggest, issue" there, 243, stood broad determined preponderance, mystery majority why, crux turned discuss "tradition" recidivism's announced unqualified today's it. Admittedly, criticized considered majority's unsupportable restraint restricting recidivism. criticism target doggedly refrained endorsing attributes disagreed legitimacy sides that. 11. tones alarm, suggests, unsettle many consistency practices determinate statutorily administratively guidelines governing decisions. misplaced reasons. Most immediately, announce interprets concerns emerged decisions century. someday fear, hinder National Government) choosing pursue policies aimed rationalizing practices. lead requiring ceiling, constrain penalties. prompt interpretation bear found, who Finally, disagree dire prediction States' policies, go conflict enshrined Constitution accused, yield Burch Louisiana, 441 130, 139 (1979) (Non-unanimous six-person "sufficiently threaten[] principles [animating guarantee] interest yield"); Almeida-Sanchez 413 266, 273 (1973) needs enforcement constant Constitution's protections individual exercises official power. predictability pressures counsels resolute loyalty safeguards"). Stevens, J., concurring concurring. Scalia, I am convinced unconstitutional legislature remove assessment prescribed exposed. clear essence holdings 358 (1970), 197 (1977). permit anything firmly embedded jurisprudence centuries 364; Duncan 391 145, 151 (1968). my view, encompasses death. Part 639, 647 649 departed did, 95 (Stevens, dissenting) Walton, 709 714 dissenting), reconsidered course. order join today, do. 53 55 56 dissenting S. Ct. 1219 possibility, Monge California, 2246, 2255-2257 forth alter congressionally ambiguities fashion Kennedy, 57 58 59 whom Chief Justice, O'Connor, Breyer join, dissenting. presented prohibiting codify. 2119. shared does. adopts strained according prohibits 61 Had involved interpretation, Questions nonetheless routine. unwilling rest textual analysis. Rather, bolster specter " 'grave questions,' ante, 12, adequate explanation origins, contours, consequences concerns. reliance so-called inconsistent usual stare decisis contradicts approach (1998). precedents admit Almedarez-Torres. Departing recent sweeping casts assumptions system States. Thus, among unsettling consequences, intrudes legitimate vital interests, upsetting balance. unfortunate unnecessary result. 62 Before departs troubling analyzes opinion, acknowledged, comprehensive. submission, interpretative ambiguity exists reaches wrong begin question. 63 laws proscribe transgressions. commits her violates parts (1974), government invoked, Sullivan 508 275, 278 (1993); 239. rigorous "factors offender crime." 228; 93 "[T]he normally 228. 64 "look intended." 65 66 67 68 V). 69 acknowledge, initial Ante, conclusion survives meticulous examination. 70 typical robbery-type ordinary purposes, instance, clause complaint drawn (1). design yields convert directed alone. clear, proffered implemented, end verb "be punished") period. written, though, difficult double insert second, intending combine two. 71 unpersuaded common-sense substance (3), including commission, results victim deemed purposes. "as imagine," 230, dispute. fix discretionary regimes. Dept. Rhodes Conly, Analysis Sentencing X XV (Federal Research Program FJRP 81/004, 1981) (under preguidelines threatened difference length sentence). codified abound point. Other discloses widespread victim-impact §12.55.125(c)(2) (1998) ("physical Ariz. §13.702(C) (Supp. 1998 1999) ("serious Colo. §18 105(9)(f ) Fla. §921.0016(3)(l) ("permanent Haw. §706-662(5) victims); Ill. Comp. Stat., ch. 730, §5/5 3.2(a) La. Code. Crim. Proc. Ann., 894.1(B)(5) (West 1997) ("risk great person"); §2C:44 1(a)(2) 1995) ("gravity inflicted victim"); §15A 1340.16(d)(19) ("[t]he debilitating"); Ohio §2929.12(B)(2) Admin. Rules §213 008 0002(1)(b)(I) Tenn. §40 114(12) ("death Judicial Admin., D, Form ("substantial understanding, surprising anomalous chose 72 addition, plain reinforced patterns drafting. ending punished in" subsection. graded ranges, predicated specific (such death). 1324(a)(1). similar logic. true separated subsection, giving problem resolve. always subsections, however. 1347 III) (health-care fraud; "results death"). §1324, afterward. 73 active main passive prohibited conduct. 1116 ("[w]hoever kills kill"); 2114 ("assaults," "robs rob," "receives, possesses, conceals, disposes"); §29.03(a)(1), injury," "uses exhibits deadly weapon"); 248(b) (setting forth, "if results," results"); Commission, Guidelines Manual §2B3.1(b)(3) (Nov. 1998) guideline; "[i]f sustained absolute rules. uses phrasing instances. 2262(b)(3) ("if weapon offense"). Nevertheless, customary support, contradict, 75 background considerations, deserving response. 76 cites (according history) modeled. "death" "result[ing]" all. omission, irrelevant Yet states '[t]he offense' 'tracks statutes' §2111. (1992)). "tak[ing]" "attempt[ing]" "from another," "by intimidation." altogether §2111, another" value imprisoned." Of course §§2111 "within jurisdiction States" former, "transported, commerce" latter). Those unambiguous statutes. debatable circumstance §2111 either. 77 Passing §§2113 disagree. captioned "Bank incidental crimes," consists eight subsections. definitional hand. (a), proscribes i.e., "tak[ing], attempt[ing] take," Subsection (b) proceeds larceny cast natural proscribed. Subsections (d) (e) §2113, relied "(d) Whoever, committing, attempting commit, (a) assaults person, puts jeopardy device, twenty-five both. "(e) committing apprehension commission freeing himself arrest confinement forces accompany consent ten (The citations score inapt. hold §§2113(d) offenses.) do, fail structure, divided parallel form. Excluding end, five "[w]hoever," (b)) presume structured neighbors finds analogous matched. fails introduce introduced "assaults person" "puts device" results" "death former before, after, punishment-introducing ." They phrased voice, placing actions, "or closer analogue opposed 81 §2118, asserts citation "another (a)(3) correct differences comparable. Clauses sentences; ways qualifying provided. §2118 thing 2113: language, four 82 short, indulging assumptions, substantive employ §§2111, 2118. 83 next consumer product-tampering 1365(a), indeed true, statute. However, nor, research indicates, creates multiple offenses," kind. recite counts product tampering, §1365(a). None 84 final justification rests practice. argue sentencing; above, Instead, says created harm. unremarkable. reflect intuition forcible theft, else equal, blameworthy responding added Recognizing policy concern, gives scant us: agree persuasive state-law undercut Ten thirteen follow pattern. Another (captioned "Aggravated robbery" "Robbery degree") incorporates (either explicit cross-reference implication), voice), elsewhere "a class felony"). remaining 1988), §515.020 1990), deviate pattern minor respects third, §636:1 structure. wished emulate detail, expected manner model. Cf. 2113(e),(d). me (i) utilized (ii) concentrate deciding classed sustains 87 errs simple construction, discussion. inject authorities purpose write other, produce coherent body interpreting create instability precedents. says. justice system. implement protection, follows, crime; arise, 89 Nonetheless, wake straightforward. homicide sought intentional killing passion. passion sudden been, almost inception attaching unlawful homicide." 696. explained, "held shift presuming offense." 90 Patterson, confronted recognizes, considerable leeway permitted place proving defendants "nothing implied against" 216. 91 upheld visibly possessed enumerated Today's errs, respectful Patterson. McMillan's behavior already "rejected whenever links 'severity punishment' 'the fact' doubt." 214). 92 decision, chooses rely none. 14-15. ought Almendarez-Torres. otherwise, strive controls us. matter, methodology incorrect. teaches canon applicable "genuinely constructions complexities unraveled. avoids 'fair' one." 238. reasons I, Appeals' superior At minimum, 1326(b) insufficient warrant there. Unless abandon pretense incumbent how reconciles 94 Not clearer reason, constitutionality Appeals. insubstantiality indicated summary offend. way: "any absent years' imprisonment taken word, comply changes phraseology scheme, unchanged. intact, life." determines resulted, years" years." Appeals): resulted. 96 tell pass muster. amounts chastising approved expressing carjackers punished. No values formalistic approach, costs down or, misconstrued, real. rephrased still schemes cross line. detailed criteria (along lines Guidelines) above. guess jeopardy. (Further, Scalia's "that exposed," (concurring opinion) validity judge-administered Once triggering altered.) uncertainties, acknowledges. 98 event, doubts founded. trigger 'elements' requirement"; said, "does impose requirement." 247. 524 721, 729 enhancement constitutes exposed"). score. 260 (opinion J.) (arguing "there until resolution 'serious doubt' permits exposure increased tenfold tried doubt"). 99 bases distinguishable, persuasive. "concerned Almendarez-Torres." 21. valid offense" corollary, "[t]he 'element' 100 previous opinions, moreover, difference, context between, concept mean inquiry another. formulating standard differentiate Inviting confusion curious safeguard procedural defendants. 101 eager controlling dimension, otherwise. informed measure recividism invoked novel character proposed proceeded reject rule. (like today) misunderstood import observation "[i]t impossible understand issue." 258 J.). "different 'tradition' 246. unconvincing uniform." infra, rational exception." (Scalia, direction justified departure decisis, historical misunderstanding misinterpretation. By demonstrates powers" correct, legislature.' Staples 511 600, 604 Liparota 471 419, 424 (1985)). instant disclosed serve objective punishing (without safeguards) harm, prevent carjacking. inference implication unconstitutionally diminished. gravamen coupled threat resolves issues, outside control. established, phase. respect, easier inherent itself. 105 predict full holding, disruption systems tasks law. seeking process, indeterminate grant vast regime uniform legislature. Campbell, §§1:3, 4:6 4:8 (2d 1991). unexpected mandating especially when, defendant, completed act. disconcerting needless 648 enhancements rejects constitutionally suspect. characterization, permissible. Under Arizona unless §13 703 (1989). Absent finding, allow candidate completed. 107 precedent, "squarely fac[e]" key "implicated §2119(2)." 24. clear. Reexamination area expected. 109 misreads seeks interpreted constitutional,

Category: 0