The Oyez Project Virtual Tour of the Supreme Court Building

Abstract

Argument: Monday, October 5, 1998
Decision: Wednesday, March 24, 1999
Issues: Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Miscellaneous

Advocates

Edward C. DuMont (Argued the cause for the United States)
Quin Denvir (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

Nathaniel Jones was indicted on federal offenses for using a gun during and in relation to a crime of violence and carjacking. Federal law prescribed varying prison terms based on the extent of the carjacking crime. Specifically, it imposed a maximum of 25 years for crimes resulting in serious bodily injury, but not-more-than-fifteen-years and life sentence clauses were included in the law. The Magistrate Judge explained to Jones that he faced a maximum of fifteen years on the carjacking charge. Based on the Magistrate's judgment, the District Court's instructions to the jury rested on the fact that the government only had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a carjacking had occurred to convict Jones for up to fifteen years. Subsequently, the jury found Jones guilty. However, a later report showed one of the carjacking victims had sustained a serious injury to the head as a result of the carjacking. Thus, the District Court imposed a twenty-five year sentence on Jones. The court rejected Jones' arguments that a serious bodily injury had neither been pleaded in the indictment nor proved before the jury. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision. It held that a serious bodily injury was a sentencing factor, not an element of an offense.

Question

Does the federal carjacking law define a single crime with three penalty options dependent on sentencing factors?

Conclusion

No. In a 5-4 decision, authored by Justice David H. Souter, the Court ruled that the federal carjacking law established three separate offenses by the specification of elements, each of which must be charged by indictment, proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and submitted to a jury for its verdict.

Supreme Court Justice Opinions and Votes (by Ideology)

Sort by Seniority
(More information here)
Decision: 5 votes for Jones, 4 vote(s) against
Legal Provision: 18 U.S.C. 2119
Wrote a regular concurrence
Stevens
Voted with the majority
Ginsburg
Voted with the minority, joined Kennedy's dissent
Breyer
Wrote the majority opinion
Souter
Wrote a dissent
Kennedy
Voted with the minority, joined Kennedy's dissent
O'Connor
Voted with the minority, joined Kennedy's dissent
Rehnquist
Wrote a regular concurrence
Scalia
Voted with the majority
Thomas
Full Opinion by Justice David H. Souter

Cite this page

The Oyez Project, Jones v. United States, 526 U.S. 227 (1999),
available at: <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1998/1998_97_6203/>
(last visited ).