Drug Offenses and the Armed Career Criminal Act (Part 5)

by | Sep 14, 2024 | Blog, Criminal Law, Monmouth County, New Jersey, Ocean County

The 6-3 United States Supreme Court majority concluded with the following in relevant part: Brown also claims that his reading is required by United States v. Schooner Peggy, 1 Cranch 103, 110, which says that when the law changes while a case is in progress, the case must be decided under the new law. But §924(e)(2)(A)(ii) has not changed at any point in the litigation.

Petitioners’ additional arguments do not persuade. Petitioners assert that this Court’s interpretation is underinclusive because it would preclude ACCA enhancements for state offenses involving drugs added to the federal lists only after the state crimes were committed. But none of the parties’ interpretations captures all cases involving career criminals. Petitioners next suggest that the Government’s interpretation is absurd because it would exclude all state drug convictions before the CSA’s enactment in 1970. But there are reasons Congress might have chosen not to court either federal or state drug convictions that occurred before 1970.

Petitioners also argue that the Government’s interpretation would unduly burden courts and defendants by requiring them to undertake the laborious task of digging up old federal drug schedules and comparing those to the state laws the defendants violated, but petitioners overstate the difficulty of this task. Finally, petitioners contend that the rule of lenity counsels in favor of their interpretations. But lenity applies only if a statute remains grievously ambiguous, and here context, precedent, and statutory design adequately show “what Congress intended.” United States v. Castleman, 572 U. S. 157, 173.

Justice Alito was joined by Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Thomas, Justice Sotomayor, Justice Kavanaugh, and Justice Barrett. Justice Jackson filed a dissent in which she was joined by Justices Kagan, and Gorsuch.

The majority’s analysis weakens and becomes non-existent towards the end of the opinion. Statements like “there are reasons Congress might have chosen not to court either federal or state drug convictions that occurred before 1970” call for speculation and provide no guidance.

Excellent rating
Based on 288 reviews
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Excellent advice. Clam and accretive. Handled my case professionally and efficiently. Thank you for the great service. -D.
Danni K
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
I was very pleased with my representation by Fred Sisto. He is very honest and explained everything to me in detail. I would recommend him to anybody who is seeking legal representation..
Jeff M
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Very informative. Would not hesitate to use Attorney Sisto.
Rose C
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
I had occasion to speak with Fred regarding one of my employees who was dealing with an extended revocation. Fred gave me several suggestions which I passed on along with his name and number. I think he used him and he is now back driving. Fred was very professional and responsive even though I wasn't a client.
Dave P
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Mr Sisto did an excellent job in defending my innocence in court. He got me the best result possible. Along with his professionalism and timely responses he was a terrific choice.
Emily F
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
i have not needed the service of fred sisto but am grateful for the notices i receive
Bill P
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Mr.Sisto helped me with my registration recently and it was a success. He was not only professional, but he answered in a timely matter and was very detail-oriented. He made sure my issue was resolved as fast as he could. I highly recommend Mr.Sisto to anyone who is experiencing legal issues.
Daniella T
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Honestamente el mejor, lucha hasta el final para darte los mejores resultados y es muy honesto. En mi caso iba a perder mi licencia de conducir y hasta dos años de probatoria y el Sr. Sisto lo resolvió con una multa. Estoy muy agradecido y satisfecho con los resultados y del trabajo de el.
Emmanuel A
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Have nothing but great things to say about Fred, highly recommended
Bill S
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
I was very content with Fred’s services. He was extremely communicative throughout the entire process and I am happy with our results.
Lidia D