Harris, Ring, and the Future of Relevant Conduct Sentencing

Abstract

This article examines the implications of two cases decided by the US Supreme Court in the aftermath of its landmark decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey: United States v. Harris and Ring v. Arizona. In Apprendi, the Court held that “sentencing factors” that increased sentences on grounds other than the elements of the offense of conviction must be proved to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. In Harris, the Court did not apply this requirement to sentencing factors adduced in support of mandatory minimum sentences. In Ring, the Court did apply the requirement to aggravating factors adduced in support of the death penalty. I argue that Harris was incorrectly decided, and proposes a rationale that would reconcile proof of factors supporting mandatory minimums with Apprendi and Ring. I also draw implications for the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.