Alleyne v. U.S.

Jury in criminal proceedings; right to have a fact submitted to the jury when such a fact could increase the penalty; Sixth Amendment: here, the sentencing range supported by the jury’s verdict was five years’ imprisonment to life, but the judge, rather than the jury, found brandishing. This increased the penalty to which Alleyne was subjected and violated his Sixth Amendment rights (Petitioner Alleyne was charged, as relevant here, with using or carry­ing a firearm in relation to a crime of violence, 18 U. S. C. §924(c)(1)(A), which carries a 5-year mandatory minimum sentence, §924(c)(1)(A)(i), that increases to a 7-year minimum “if the firearm is brandished,” §924(c)(1)(A)(ii), and to a 10-year minimum “if the fire­arm is discharged,” §924(c)(1)(A)(iii). In convicting Alleyne, the jury form indicated that he had “used or carried a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence,” but not that the firearm was “brandished.”); the Sixth Amendment right to trial “by an impartial jury,” in conjunction with the Due Process Clause, requires that each element of a crime be proved to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Gaudin, 515 U. S., at 510; the touchstone for determining whether a fact must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt is whether the fact constitutes an “element” of the charged offense. United States v. O’Brien, 560 U. S. 218, ___. Apprendi’s definition necessarily includes not only facts that increase the ceiling, but also those that increase the floor. At common law, the relationship between crime and punishment was clear. A sentence was prescribed for each offense, leaving judges with little sentencing discretion. If a fact was by law essential to the penalty, it was an element of the offense. There was a well­ established practice of including in the indictment, and submitting to the jury, every fact that was a basis for imposing or increasing pun­ishment. And this understanding was reflected in contemporaneous court decisions and treatises (U.S.S.Ct., 17.06.2013, Alleyne v. U.S., J. Thomas).

Rôle du jury dans le procès pénal s’agissant des faits qui imposent une peine minimum, des faits qui imposent une peine maximum, et des facteurs qui permettent au Tribunal d’augmenter la peine. La Cour Suprême est très divisée sur ces questions et la présente décision fait l’objet de plusieurs avis concurrents ou dissidents.

En résumé, si le juge retient un fait qui a pour effet d’augmenter la peine, ce fait doit être soumis au jury qui doit le retenir que s’il l’estime établi au-delà d’un doute raisonnable, car l’effet est d’augmenter la peine. Par conséquent le Juge ne peut pas lui seul retenir ce fait. Ce raisonnement découle du Sixième Amendement qui prévoit le droit à un procès par un jury impartial en relation avec le droit à un procès équitable (Due Process Clause) : est ainsi requis que chaque élément d’un crime soit prouvé par le jury au-delà d’un doute raisonnable.