The Supreme Court Again Strengthens the Right to a Jury Trial in Criminal Sentencing

In a significant ruling on Friday, the Supreme Court declared that the right to a trial by jury and due process applies to individuals facing harsh sentencing enhancements under federal law. This decision shifts power from judges to the public and will impact the future punishments of many criminal defendants.

The case revolves around Paul Erlinger, who was convicted in 2017 of being a felon in possession of a firearm and received a 15-year sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA). This law increases the punishment for this offense from a 10-year maximum to a 15-year minimum if the defendant has prior convictions for three violent felonies or serious drug offenses.

During sentencing, the judge expressed that a five-year sentence would be fair considering Erlinger’s positive changes since his previous convictions. However, the ACCA mandated the 15-year sentence, leading to a series of legal twists and turns.

The U.S. Court of Appeals later determined that two of Erlinger’s past offenses did not qualify as violent felonies under the ACCA. Prosecutors then cited burglaries Erlinger committed 26 years earlier to uphold the 15-year sentence. Erlinger argued that a jury should decide on the separateness of these offenses, but the sentencing court disagreed.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority, emphasized Erlinger’s rights under the 5th and 6th Amendments to have a jury assess these crucial factors. The ruling draws on the precedent set by Apprendi v. New Jersey (2000) and underscores the importance of the jury system in safeguarding against government overreach.

Gorsuch’s opinion highlights the historical significance of jury trials and their role in ensuring a fair criminal justice system. This decision is consistent with his previous support for the right to a trial by jury in legal matters.

While the Court’s decision in Erlinger did not align strictly with partisan viewpoints, dissenting Justices expressed concerns about the implications of the ruling. Gorsuch countered these arguments by emphasizing the need for the government to prove its case effectively before imposing enhanced punishments.