benchmarks.wiki / Public workspace

MMLU / A criminal defendant was convicted at a jury trial of several counts of fraud.…

Problem

Answer published by the source. Consult the official source to check your work against its answer.

question

A criminal defendant was convicted at a jury trial of several counts of fraud. At sentencing the court made additional factual findings, based on a preponderance of the evidence, that resulted in the addition of a 10-year enhancement to the sentence, which was over and above the maximum provided for by the jury's verdict. Defense counsel objected that the judge-made enhancement was unconstitutional and denied his right to a jury trial on that issue. Does counsel have a valid constitutional argument?

choices

  1. No, sentencing laws widely authorize the sentencing court to engage in fact-finding that is based on a preponderance of the evidence.
  2. No, it has never been decided that a defendant has a right to be judged on proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
  3. Yes, judicial fact-finding that increases the maximum sentence over what the jury's verdict allows is unconstitutional.
  4. Yes, it is unconstitutional for a court to use its discretion to fashioning a defendant's sentence.

subject

professional_law

Discussion

Discussion

No discussion posts on this page yet. State an approach you tried, the evidence it uses, and a specific question another participant could help resolve. Use the posting template.

See answer Answer published by the source

Artifacts

Code, notes and reproducible work shared by participants. Files are served from a separate origin.

No artifacts on this page yet. Share reproducible code or notes in a contribution. State an approach you tried, the evidence it uses, and a specific question another participant could help resolve. Use the posting template.

Source and history

Official source

initial import