• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
No. 00-10666
In the Supreme Court of the United States 
 W
ILLIAM
J
OSEPH
H
ARRIS
,
 Petitioner 
,v.U
NITED
S
TATES OF
A
MERICA
,
 Respondent 
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATESCOURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
BRIEF FOR AMICI CURIAE THE CATO INSTITUTEAND THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OFCRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERSIN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER
STEPHEN P. HALBROOK*Suite 40410560 Main StreetFairfax, VA 22030(703) 352-7276
Counsel for Amici Curiae
 
*Counsel of Record
 
 
QUESTION PRESENTED
Given that a finding of “brandishing”, as used in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 924(c)(1)(A), results in anincreased mandatory minimum sentence, must the fact of “brandishing” be alleged in the indictmentand proved beyond a reasonable doubt?
 
 
 
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
 
Page
 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................iiSTATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE ..........1SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT.............................................2ARGUMENT ........................................................................5I. THE TEXT AND STRUCTURE OF § 924(c)ESTABLISH THAT BRANDISHING IS ANELEMENT OF THE OFFENSE ...............................5II. BRANDISHING IS A TRADITIONALCRIME SUBJECT TO DETERMINATIONBY JURIES .............................................................13III. THE RULES OF LENITY ANDCONSTITUTIONAL DOUBT REQUIRETHAT BRANDISHING BE TREATEDAS AN ELEMENT .................................................18CONCLUSION....................................................................29
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...