No. 18-7745
Alrick A. Evans v. Connecticut
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: affirmative-defense alleyne-precedent criminal-statute element jury-determination mandatory-minimum sixth-amendment united-states-v-alleyne
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw Arbitration ERISA FifthAmendment DueProcess JusticiabilityDoctri
AdministrativeLaw Arbitration ERISA FifthAmendment DueProcess JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference:
2019-03-01
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
Docket Entries
2019-03-04
Petition DENIED.
2019-02-14
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/1/2019.
2019-02-08
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 March 6, 2019)
Attorneys
Alrick Evans
Joshua Grigsby Grubaugh — Pieszak-Miller & Brodeur, Petitioner
Joshua Grigsby Grubaugh — Pieszak-Miller & Brodeur, Petitioner
Connecticut