United States v. Martin O'brien and Arthur Burgess (560 U.S. 218)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided May 24, 2010 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 560 U.S. 218 · 130 S. Ct. 2169
- Decided
- May 24, 2010
- Term
- October Term 2009
- Vote
- 9–0
- Majority author
- Justice Kennedy
- Issue area
- Criminal Procedure
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party lost
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
Opinion excerpt
Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court. The Court must interpret, once again, § 924(c) of Title 18 of the United States Code. This provision prohibits the use or carrying of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime, or the possession of a firearm in furtherance of such crimes. § 924(c)(1)(A). A violation of the statute carries a mandatory minimum term of five years’ imprisonment, § 924(c)(l)(A)(i); but if the firearm is a ma-ehinegun, the statute requires a 30-year mandatory minimum sentence, § 924(c)(l)(B)(ii). Whether a firearm was used, carried, or possessed is, as all concede, an element of the offense. At issue here is whether the fact that the firearm was a machinegun is an element to be proved to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt or a sentencing factor to be proved to the judge at sentencing. In an earlier case the Court determined that an analogous machinegun provision in a previous version of § 924 constituted an element of an offense to be proved to the jury. Castillo v. United States, 530 U. S. 120 (2000). The Castillo decision, however, addressed the statute as it existed before congressional amendments made in 1998. And in a case after Castillo, the brandishing provision in the post-1998 version of § 924 was held to provide a sentencing factor, not an element of the offense. Harris v. United States, 536 U. S. 545 (2002).…
Excerpt of a 28,709-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.