Add to Library

Search

Harris v. United States

Citation. Harris v. United States, 536 U.S. 545, 122 S. Ct. 2406, 153 L. Ed. 2d 524, 70 U.S.L.W. 4655, 2002 Cal. Daily Op. Service 5585, 2002 Daily Journal DAR 7035, 15 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 473 (U.S. June 24, 2002)

Powered by

Law Students: Don’t know your Bloomberg Law login? Register here

CitationHarris v. United States, 536 U.S. 545, 122 S. Ct. 2406, 153 L. Ed. 2d 524, 2002 U.S. LEXIS 4652, 70 U.S.L.W. 4655, 2002 Cal. Daily Op. Service 5585, 2002 Daily Journal DAR 7035, 15 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 473 (U.S. June 24, 2002)

Harris v. United States, 536 U.S. 545, 122 S. Ct. 2406, 153 L. Ed. 2d 524, 2002 U.S. LEXIS 4652, 70 U.S.L.W. 4655, 2002 Cal. Daily Op. Service 5585, 2002 Daily Journal DAR 7035, 15 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 473 (U.S. June 24, 2002)

Brief Fact Summary. Gun and narcotics dealer was given a higher sentence for brandishing a gun.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. McMillan is “limit[ed] . . . to cases that do not involve the imposition of a sentence more severe than the statutory maximum for the offense established by the jury’s verdict.”

Points of Law - Legal Principles in this Case for Law Students.

Within the range authorized by the jury's verdict, however, the political system may channel judicial discretion—and rely upon judicial expertise—by requiring defendants to serve minimum terms after judges make certain factual findings.

View Full Point of Law

point of law

Facts. Petitioner Harris sold narcotics out of his pawnshop, while wearing an unconcealed firearm. Under 18 U.S.C. Section: 924 (c)(1)(A), he was sentenced to seven years for “brandishing” his firearm. Petitioner argued that this was a statutory offence separate from the crime on which he had been convicted, and had to be proved under Apprendi.

Issue. “Whether [the] McMillan [case, which ‘sustained a statute that increased the minimum penalty for a crime.

Create New Group