When a jury's answer to a special interrogatory negates an element of the charged offense, must a district court enter a judgment of acquittal when the negated element is the fact triggering the mandatory minimum sentence

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW The Sixth Amendment right to trial “by an impartial jury,” in conjunction with the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, requires that each element of a crime with which a defendant is charged by proved to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506, 510-11 (1995); Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 277-78 (1998). This Court has held that any fact that, by law, increases the penalty for a crime is an “element” that must be submitted to the jury and found beyond a reasonable doubt. Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99, 108 (2013); Apprendi v. United States, 530 U.S. 466, 483 & n.10, 490 (2000). That is because the “core crime and the fact triggering the mandatory minimum sentence together constitute a new, aggravated crime.” Alleyne, 570 U.S. at 113. The question presented is: When a jury’s answer to a special interrogatory negates an element of the charged offense, must a district court enter a judgment of acquittal when the negated element is the fact triggering the mandatory minimum sentence, contrary the Fifth Circuit’s holding? iii No. In the Supreme Court of the United States BALTAZAR AGUIRRE-RIVERA, PETITIONER, V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENT PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Petitioner Baltazar Aguirre-Rivera asks that a writ of certiorari issue to review the opinion and judgment entered by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on August 10, 2021.