It seems there is a difference between an element that is to be proven to a jury and a sentencing factor.<\/p>\n
While it may seem like a moot point \u2013 whether or not there is a difference between an element to be proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt and a sentencing factor \u2013 the difference is quite crucial in some cases in terms of federal criminal defense. Witness a recent trial (United States v. O\u2019Brien et al) where the courts held that in a prosecution under 18 U.S.C. \u00a7924(c) the fact that a firearm was a machine gun was an element that needed to be proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt and was not a sentencing factor for a judge at sentencing time.<\/p>\n
Let\u2019s back up a few steps and take a quick look at the precursor to this particular case, Bailey v. United States (1995). That particular case (more…)<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" It seems there is a difference between an element that is to be proven to a jury and a sentencing factor. While it may seem like a moot point \u2013 whether or not there is a difference between an element…<\/span><\/p>\n