Supreme Court Takes on Armed Criminal Career Act and the Sixth Amendment

In Erlinger v. United States, the Supreme Court addresses whether the Constitution requires a jury trial and proof beyond a reasonable doubt to find that a defendant’s prior convictions were committed on different occasions as is necessary to impose an enhanced sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA).

Paul Erlinger received a 15-year sentence under the ACCA for illegally possessing a firearm. The length of his sentence was based on his three previous state court convictions for violent burglary felonies in Indiana. Erlinger challenged his sentence by arguing that Indiana’s definition of burglary is broader than the federal statute making it inequivalent to a violent offense under the ACCA. He also argued that the burglaries did not occur on separate occasions and that the dispute of these facts should be determined by a jury under the Sixth Amendment. The Seventh Circuit rejected his arguments, upholding his conviction and sentence.

The question facing the Supreme Court is whether a repeat offender has a constitutional right to let a jury decide if past offenses are distinct enough to trigger a longer prison term under the ACCA.

During oral argument, Erlinger’s counsel argued that there should be a bifurcation of trials, with one jury determining the defendant’s guilt and, if the defendant is convicted, another jury determining whether the defendant’s criminal record satisfies ACCA. The government’s counsel also floated the possibility of bifurcated trials as a remedy. Justice Alito questioned how a bifurcated system would be implemented and what would be favorable about having this system. The Justices appointed amicus curiae to argue in support of the judgment. Amicus counsel argued that putting recidivism in front of any jury would gravely prejudice defendants. But Justice Sotomayor questioned why the Court would take that view when the criminal defense bar has sided with Erlinger. The Chief Justice also questioned why bifurcation would not be the answer.

This case was argued on March 27, 2024. A decision is expected later in the term. Stay tuned for Dykema’s client alert discussing the Court’s forthcoming opinion.

For more information, please contact Chantel Febus, James Azadian, Cory Webster, Christopher Sakauye, Monika Harris, Puja Valera, A. Joseph Duffy, IV., or Heming Xu.