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
I think Fred's alerts are a great service to his audience and a very smart marketing tool. Keep up the good work, Fred.
Charles O
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Today my life was about to change! With great communication and excellent service he was able to create the impossible!! I am now able to continue to drive for a living!! I highly recommend his services and trust his judgment-HE KNOWS HIS STUFF!!! He saved my life and livelihood today! Mr.Frank Sisto is an absolutely amazing attorney! Thank you again I’ll never forget this day! God Bless
Edward J
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
I had the pleasure of dealing with Mr Sisto personally from beginning to end. He was very Professional, very clear with his communication and acted quickly to find a solution to my particular issue. I HIGHLY recommend Frederick P Sisto to any and all who need an amazing and hard working attorney...
Eddie B
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Especially given the situations we had to work under right now with COVID-19, I am glad to have had Fred Sisto represent me. The outcome was much better than anticipated, and he always ensured to maintain proper communication, including not going any further until you 100% understood what's going on, and made a point to keep me updated as much as possible with any of the incoming changes due to quarantine (which was confusing for me at first). Always has your best interests in mind, and an all-around great attorney and person.
Mel C
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
I am thankful and fortunate to have had Fred represent me as counsel. His expertise, responsiveness and professionalism are second to none. I was more than satisfied with the outcome of my case and the level of service Fred's practice provided.
John M
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
....and his Dog Gonzo is a great attorney.
Duane H
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
The most important thing an attorney can do for their client is get results in the courtroom. Fred Sisto did this for me, and did so in such a professional and communicative manner that I would absolutely recommend him to anyone in New Jersey who is dealing with criminal charges. Fred was able get results when other attorneys did not. I definitely recommend speaking with him.
Brian C
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
always feel better knowing I don't need to be stopped when I haven't done anything wrong it's a great service and gives me peace of mint
Liesel T
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Great Job! Enjoy getting the updates.
Ed R
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
He has helped numerous people stay out of trouble
Christopher B