Apprendi v. New Jersey case brief

 

Apprendi v. New Jersey: P fired shots into the home of a black family that had recently moved into an all-white neighborhood. He was arrested and admitted that he was the shooter. During questioning he stated (he later retracted) that even though he doesn’t know the occupants, “b/c they’re black he does not want them in the neighborhood.” P was sentenced to 12 years for 2^nd degree possession (5-10 years) but the trial judge found by a preponderance of the evidence that the crime was motivated by racial hatred. NJ’s hate crime law imposes an extended term for racially motivated crimes (10 - 20 years).

(MAJORITY: Stevens, Scalia, Souter Thomas, Ginsburg) Other than the fact of prior conviction (Almendarez-Torres), any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt. It is unconstitutional for a legislature to remove from the jury the assessment of facts that increase the prescribed range of penalties to which a criminal defendant is exposed. It is equally clear that such facts must be established by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court states that certain sentencing elements that increase the penalty for a crime beyond the statutory maximum are not sentencing elements in the traditional sense and should instead be submitted to the jury as if it were an element of the crime.

(DISSENT: O’Connor, CJ, Kennedy, Breyer) Court has long recognized that not every fact that bears on D’s punishment need be charged in an indictment, submitted to a jury, and proved by the government beyond a reasonable doubt.

• Pointless Decision: The argue this decision is pointless b/c NJ can just change its statute to INCLUDE the hate crime extension:

  1. Ex: Instead of having 2 statutes: (1) possession only getting 1-5 years and (2) a hate crime enhancement of 10-20 years, NJ can just change their possession law to be 1-20 years! This wouldn’t violate the majority’s reasoning.

     1. Majority Counter: NJ is not going to want to change their law for possession for up to 20 years - too high a boundary. People will protest it, it will be difficult, etc.
  2. Ex: Also, can structure their statute like McMillan which the Court approved: give the judge judicial discretion within the bounds of the sentencing range.
• O’Connor’s Argument: This decision is dangerous b/c NJ is not an outlier state – MANY states have sentencing structures like them. Thus, under Apprendi EVERY criminal who was convicted under laws like NJ files a petition to have their conviction turned over.
  1. Retro-Activity: Most new rules are not retroactivity. Even if there was the most glaring error, it does not apply to cases that are final. Some people want this to be retroactive! So far the Court has said no EXCEPT in a related context in Ring v. Arizona: The jury found Ring guilty and the judge determined if he got a death penalty. The court said this is not good – the jury needs to decide on the death penalty.