Citation network
Lewis Vs. United States
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 24, 1996
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
-
Lewis v. UnitedSearch
-
States - 518 U.S. 322 (1996) October Term, 1995 Syllabus Lewis V. UnitedSearch
-
to a jury trial is reserved for defendants accused of serious offenses and does not extend to petty offenses. Duncan v. LouisianaSearch
-
additional statutory penalties so severe as to indicate that it considered the offense serious. E. g., Blanton v. NorthSearch
-
transform the petty offense into a serious one, to which the 323 jury trial right would apply. Codispoti v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
U. S. 506 , 511, and Taylor v. HayesSearch
-
by a judge's pretrial commitment that the aggregate sentence imposed will not exceed six months. See United States v. CoppinsSearch
-
United States v. BencheckSearch
-
Rife v. GodbehereSearch
-
Frank v. UnitedSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
accord, District of Columbia v. ClawansSearch
-
common law that a jury trial was not provided to a defendant charged with multiple petty offenses. See, e. g., Queen v. MatthewsSearch
-
King v. SwallowSearch
-
Baldwin v. NewSearch
-
see also Mayberry v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
was deemed particularly important in that context. Id., at 516 (quoting Bloom v. IllinoisSearch
-
because the sentence actually imposed on him for criminal contempt exceeded six months. By comparison, in Taylor v. HayesSearch
-
with our precedents. The Sixth Amendment guarantees a jury trial to a defendant charged with a serious crime. Duncan v. LouisianaSearch
-
extends as well to a defendant who is sentenced in one proceeding to more than six months' imprisonment. Codispoti v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
the crimes then are considered serious for constitutional purposes, even if each is petty by itself, Codispoti v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
for petty offenses must be aggregated in determining whether a defendant is entitled to a jury trial. Cf. State v. McCarrollSearch
-
So. 2d 475, 480 (La. 1976) (concluding Codispoti compelled it to overrule Monroe v. WilhiteSearch
-
than six months are deemed by the community's social and ethical judgments to be serious. See District of Columbia v. ClawansSearch
-
segments punishable by no more than six months apiece. Prosecutors have broad discretion in framing charges, see Ball v. UnitedSearch
-
prevent him under today's holding from obtaining a trial by jury while still obtaining the same punishment. Cf. People v. EstevezSearch
-
estoppel if a fact is found in favor of the defendant and is dispositive 337 in later trials, see Ashe v. SwensonSearch
-
to make these kinds of sentencing decisions before trial. The Court approved just this practice, however, in Scott v. IllinoisSearch
-
See, e. g., Blanton v. NorthSearch
-
the prosecution rather than the individual offenses-is appropriate. The majority attempts to distinguish Codispoti v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
JUSTICE KENNEDY reads a second contempt case, Tay lor v. HayesSearch
-
Syllabus Lewis V. UnitedSearch
-
Blanton v. NorthSearch
-
and Taylor v. HayesSearch
-
See United States v. CoppinsSearch
-
Queen v. MatthewsSearch
-
Bloom v. IllinoisSearch
-
Cf. State v. McCarrollSearch
-
Monroe v. WilhiteSearch
-
See District of Columbia v. ClawansSearch
-
Ball v. UnitedSearch
-
Cf. People v. EstevezSearch
-
Scott v. IllinoisSearch
-
Mayberry v. PennsylvaniaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial