Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Supreme Court says jury must decide whether prior convictions count separately for ACCA enhancement
Loading...
Summary
In Erlanger v. United States the Court held that whether prior convictions were committed on separate occasions — a fact that can trigger the Armed Career Criminal Act enhancement — must be decided by a jury; lower courts should consider bifurcated proceedings to protect defendants.
The Supreme Court in Erlanger v. United States held that a jury, not a judge, must decide whether a defendant's prior convictions were committed on separate occasions for purposes of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), a determination that can trigger a mandatory, enhanced sentence.
Francesca Williams, education attorney at the Federal Judicial Center, introduced the case as involving Paul Erlanger, who pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. Laurie Levinson, a law professor and David W. Burcham Chair in Ethical Advocacy at Loyola Law School, summarized that Erlanger faced a basic maximum sentence for the firearm offense but could be exposed to ACCA’s heavier penalty—if three prior predicate convictions are treated as separate offenses.
Evan Lee, emeritus professor at the University of California, San Francisco School of Law, explained the doctrinal background, distinguishing two lines of Supreme Court authority: cases that determine who must find sentencing facts (for example, Apprendi and Alleyne) and cases that limit what materials judges may consult to determine the fact of a prior conviction (for example, Taylor, Descamps and Shepard). Lee said the Court treated Erlanger as falling into the first line: whether the facts that make prior convictions distinct are jury questions.
Levinson summarized the Court’s holding: “any issues beyond the fact of the conviction must be decided by a jury,” and the majority concluded that the timing, place and participants surrounding prior offenses involve facts that should be resolved by jurors. The podcast reported that Chief Justice Roberts concurred, noting a possible harmless‑error avenue, and that Justice Thomas wrote separately urging reconsideration of Almendarez‑Torres. A dissent (described on the podcast as joined by Justices Kavanaugh, Alito and Jackson) defended Almendarez‑Torres as still good law.
Panelists advised lower courts to protect defendants from prejudicial fact‑finding by considering bifurcated proceedings at sentencing when the ACCA question hinges on whether convictions were committed on the same or separate occasions.
The episode closed with the panel noting Erlanger narrows the set of sentencing facts judges may decide and emphasizes jury resolution when enhanced mandatory sentences are at stake.
