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
He has helped numerous people stay out of trouble
Christopher B
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
I wholeheartedly recommend the legal services of Frederick Sisto. Mr. Sisto brings with him a wealth of knowledge, experience, and professionalism - qualities that make him highly effective at providing legal counsel.
John D
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Thanks for sharing this information.
Joe F
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Fred is fast, attentive and excels at what he does. He provides reasonable and professional advice when your are dealing with complex and stressful legal situations. He is straight to the point and does not wast time. I would use him again and definitely recommend.
1093Nj
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Very professional and knowledgeable, also awesome communication and very down to earth guy. Would highly recommend to anyone. Matter was resolved with the best possible outcome that I could've hoped.
Mike A
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 love the insight! It helps to keep my kids out of troubel!
Michael G
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Fred Sisto is a great asset & a life saver!
Matthew P
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
Google star 1Google star 2Google star 3Google star 4Google star 5
Affordable, knowledgeable, efficient.
Deb W