Subscribe Subscribe   Find us on Twitter Follow POL on Twitter  



Supreme Court: Jury must find facts supporting criminal fines

| No Comments

In its 2000 decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, the Supreme Court held that any fact that increases the maximum term of incarceration faced by a criminal defendant must be proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Prior to Apprendi, judges found many of those facts in sentencing, after the jury was dismissed. Today, in Southern Union Co. v. United States, the Court extended Apprendi's rule to facts determining the maximum amount of a criminal fine.

In Southern Union, the defendant was found guilty of a criminal violation of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA") for improperly storing mercury. RCRA imposes a maximum fine of $50,000 per day for such a violation. After the company was convicted, prosecutors argued for a maximum fine of $38.1 million, asserting that the company had improperly stored mercury for 762 days. However, the jury had not been asked to determine the precise duration of the violation, and had been told that a violation of only one day was sufficient for conviction. Therefore, Southern Union argued, Apprendi permitted a maximum fine of $50,000. The Supreme Court agreed, in a decision that will have a particularly significant effect on corporate criminal defendants, who often plead guilty in the face of potentially ruinous fines. By requiring the government to prove to the jury every fact necessary to support a fine, Southern Union will give corporations charged with crimes new leverage, both in plea bargaining and at trial.

Leave a comment

Once submitted, the comment will first be reviewed by our editors and is not guaranteed to be published. Point of Law editors reserve the right to edit, delete, move, or mark as spam any and all comments. They also have the right to block access to any one or group from commenting or from the entire blog. A comment which does not add to the conversation, runs of on an inappropriate tangent, or kills the conversation may be edited, moved, or deleted.

The views and opinions of those providing comments are those of the author of the comment alone, and even if allowed onto the site do not reflect the opinions of Point of Law bloggers or the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research or any employee thereof. Comments submitted to Point of Law are the sole responsibility of their authors, and the author will take full responsibility for the comment, including any asserted liability for defamation or any other cause of action, and neither the Manhattan Institute nor its insurance carriers will assume responsibility for the comment merely because the Institute has provided the forum for its posting.

Related Entries:



Rafael Mangual
Project Manager,
Legal Policy

Manhattan Institute


Published by the Manhattan Institute

The Manhattan Insitute's Center for Legal Policy.