Citation network
Almendarez-torres Vs. United States
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Oct 14, 1997
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
- Relied / Followed
-
Almendarez-Torres v. UnitedSearch
-
States - 523 U.S. 224 (1997) October Term, 1997 Syllabus Almendarez-Torres V. UnitedSearch
-
the indictment. Pp. 228-248. (a) An indictment must set forth each element of the crime that it charges, Hamling v. UnitedSearch
-
factors relevant only to the sentencing of an offender found guilty of the charged crime. Within limits, see McMillan v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
U. S. 79 , 84-91, the question of which factors are which is normally a matter for Congress. See Staples v. UnitedSearch
-
the introduction at trial of evidence of a defendant's prior crimes risks significant prejudice. See, e. g., Spencer v. TexasSearch
-
Patterson v. NewSearch
-
and Specht v. PattersonSearch
-
crime does not exceed constitutional limits on the legislature's power to define the elements of an offense. McMillan v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
of proof might apply to sentencing determinations bearing significantly on the severity of sentence. Cf. United States v. WattsSearch
-
hearing. Almendarez-Torres pointed out that an indictment must set forth all the elements of a crime. See Hamling v. UnitedSearch
-
to impose a higher sentence when the unlawfully returning alien also has a record of prior convictions. United States v. Vasquez-OlveraSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
see United States v. ForbesSearch
-
United States v. DeLeon-RodriguezSearch
-
United States v. CrawfordSearch
-
United States v. Munoz-CernaSearch
-
United States v. HaggertySearch
-
United States v. ValdezSearch
-
United States v. Palacios-CasqueteSearch
-
cf. United States v. ColeSearch
-
b)(1)). The Ninth Circuit, however, has reached the opposite conclusion. United States v. Gonzalez-MedinaSearch
-
among the Circuits. II An indictment must set forth each element of the crime that it charges. Hamling v. UnitedSearch
-
U. S. 79 , 84-91 (1986), the question of which factors are which is normally a matter for Congress. See Staples v. UnitedSearch
-
particularly in the case of federal crimes, which are solely creatures of statute''') (quoting Liparota v. UnitedSearch
-
help courts determine a statute's objectives and thereby illuminate its text. 229 See, e. g., United States v. WellsSearch
-
Garrett v. UnitedSearch
-
crimes (at least where the conduct, in the absence of the recidivism, is independently unlawful). E. g., United States v. McGathaSearch
-
United States v. Arango-MontoyaSearch
-
United States v. JacksonSearch
-
forth substantive crimes, in respect to which subsection (a) would define a lesser included offense, see Blockburger v. UnitedSearch
-
to be cumulatively punished for two crimes where one crime is a lesser included offense of the other. See Whalen v. UnitedSearch
-
about the meaning of a statute. Trainmen v. BaltimoreSearch
-
see also INS v. NationalSearch
-
the introduction of evidence of a defendant's prior crimes risks significant prejudice. See, e. g., Spencer v. TexasSearch
-
if a defendant's stipulation were to keep the name and details of the previous offense from the jury, see Old Chief v. UnitedSearch
-
to create this kind of unfairness in respect to facts that are almost never contested. See, e. g., United States v. ForbesSearch
-
United States v. RumneySearch
-
Government of Virgin Islands v. CastilloSearch
-
however, are beside the point. They do not declare the meaning of earlier law. Cf. Federal Housing Administration v. DarlingtonSearch
-
U. S. 84 , 90 (1958). They do not seek to clarify an earlier enacted general term. Cf. Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCCSearch
-
effectiveness upon clarification, or a change in the meaning of an earlier statute. Cf. Seatrain Shipbuilding Corp. v. ShellSearch
-
United 238 States v. JinSearch
-
Fuey Moy, 241 U. S. 394 , 401 (1916) (citing United States ex rel. Attorney General v. DelawareSearch
-
see also Ashwander v. TVASearch
-
see also FTC v. AmericanSearch
-
Syllabus Almendarez-Torres V. UnitedSearch
-
Hamling v. UnitedSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial