No. 18-7496
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: affirmative-defense alleyne-precedent criminal-statute element jury-determination mandatory-minimum sixth-amendment united-states-v-alleyne
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw Arbitration FifthAmendment DueProcess Securities Patent JusticiabilityDoctri
AdministrativeLaw Arbitration FifthAmendment DueProcess Securities Patent JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference:
2019-02-15
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether a state court may interpret a criminal statute so that a fact that triggers a mandatory minimum is termed an 'affirmative defenses' rather than an 'element' so as to avoid the Sixth Amendment requirement of a jury's determination pursuant to United States v. Alleyne, 570 U.S. 99 (2013)?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED Whether a state court may interpret a criminal statute so that a fact that triggers a mandatory minimum is termed an “affirmative defenses’ rather than an “element” so as to avoid the Sixth Amendment requirement of a jury’s determination pursuant to United States v. Alleyne, 570 U.S. 99 (2013)? | | i i |
Docket Entries
2019-02-19
Petition DENIED.
2019-01-31
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/15/2019.
2019-01-28
Waiver of right of respondent Connecticut to respond filed.
2019-01-15
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due February 19, 2019)
Attorneys
Connecticut
Nemiah Allan
Joshua Grigsby Grubaugh — Pieszak-Miller & Brodeur, LLC, Petitioner
Joshua Grigsby Grubaugh — Pieszak-Miller & Brodeur, LLC, Petitioner