2,851
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: + + + + +
no edit summary
In ''Apprendi v. New Jersey'', 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] held that any fact (other than a prior conviction) that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the statutory maximum must be proved to a jury beyond a [[reasonable doubt]].
In ''Apprendi v. New Jersey'', 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] held that any fact (other than a prior conviction) that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the statutory maximum must be proved to a jury beyond a [[reasonable doubt]].
Justice [[John Paul Stevens]] delivered the opinion of the court, joined by Justices [[Antonin Scalia]], [[David Souter]], [[Clarence Thomas]], and [[Ruth Bader Ginsburg]]. Justices Thomas (joined in part by Justice Scalia) and Scalia filed concurring opinions. Justices [[Sandra Day O'Connor]] (joined by Justices [[William Rehnquist]], [[Anthony Kennedy]], and [[Stephen Breyer]]) and Breyer (joined by Justice Rehnquist) filed dissenting opinions.
==External Links==
*[http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=99-478 Opinions] at FindLaw (registration may be required)
[[category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]
[[category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]