Southern Union Co. v. United States, 567 U.S. 343 (2012), was a Supreme Court decision that applied the rule set out in Apprendi v. New Jersey—that certain non-conviction elements of a crime must be proved to a jury—to criminal penalties. The 6–3 decision was authored by Justice Sonia Sotomayor.[1]
Southern Union Company was convicted of storing hazardous liquid mercury without a permit, "on or about September 19, 2002 to October 19, 2004," in violation of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.[2] The jury was not asked to determine the exact duration of the violation. In sentencing, the probation office set a maximum fine of $38.1 million, calculated by assessing the $50,000 maximum daily fine for each of the 762 days between September 19, 2002, and October 19, 2004. Respondent appealed on the basis that the jury never determined the exact duration of the violation. The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld the sentence, agreeing that the jury had not determined the duration of the violation, but holding that Apprendi did not apply to criminal fines.[3]
The Supreme Court reversed, holding there is no principled distinction between criminal fines and imprisonment for the purpose of Apprendi because Apprendi requires that any fact other than a prior conviction that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the statutory maximum must be submitted to the jury and determined beyond a reasonable doubt. The rule preserves the historic fact-finding function of the jury, deciding that where a fine is sufficiently substantial to trigger the Sixth Amendment jury-trial guarantee, Apprendi applies.
^United States v. Southern Union Co., 630 F.3d 17 (1st Cir. 2010).
Further readingedit
Applebaum, Brynn (2015). "Criminal Asset Forfeiture and the Sixth Amendment after Southern Union and Alleyne: State-Level Ramifications". Vand. L. Rev.68 (2): 549–574.
External linksedit
Text of Southern Union Co. v. United States, 567U.S. 343 (2012) is available from:CourtListenerGoogle ScholarJustiaOyez (oral argument audio)
southern, union, united, states, this, article, relies, excessively, references, primary, sources, please, improve, this, article, adding, secondary, tertiary, sources, find, sources, news, newspapers, books, scholar, jstor, november, 2019, learn, when, remove. This article relies excessively on references to primary sources Please improve this article by adding secondary or tertiary sources Find sources Southern Union Co v United States news newspapers books scholar JSTOR November 2019 Learn how and when to remove this template message Southern Union Co v United States 567 U S 343 2012 was a Supreme Court decision that applied the rule set out in Apprendi v New Jersey that certain non conviction elements of a crime must be proved to a jury to criminal penalties The 6 3 decision was authored by Justice Sonia Sotomayor 1 Southern Union Co v United StatesSupreme Court of the United StatesArgued March 19 2012Decided June 21 2012Full case nameSouthern Union Company v United StatesDocket no 11 94Citations567 U S 343 more 132 S Ct 2344 183 L Ed 2d 318 2012 U S LEXIS 4662 74 ERC 1609 80 U S L W 4525Case historyPriorUnited States v Southern Union Co 643 F Supp 2d 201 D R I 2009 affirmed 630 F 3d 17 1st Cir 2010 cert granted 565 U S 1057 2011 SubsequentOn remand 942 F Supp 2d 235 D R I 2013 HoldingApprendi applies to criminal fines Court membershipChief Justice John Roberts Associate Justices Antonin Scalia Anthony KennedyClarence Thomas Ruth Bader GinsburgStephen Breyer Samuel AlitoSonia Sotomayor Elena KaganCase opinionsMajoritySotomayor joined by Roberts Scalia Thomas Ginsburg KaganDissentBreyer joined by Kennedy Alito Contents 1 Background 2 See also 3 References 4 Further reading 5 External linksBackground editSouthern Union Company was convicted of storing hazardous liquid mercury without a permit on or about September 19 2002 to October 19 2004 in violation of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 2 The jury was not asked to determine the exact duration of the violation In sentencing the probation office set a maximum fine of 38 1 million calculated by assessing the 50 000 maximum daily fine for each of the 762 days between September 19 2002 and October 19 2004 Respondent appealed on the basis that the jury never determined the exact duration of the violation The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld the sentence agreeing that the jury had not determined the duration of the violation but holding that Apprendi did not apply to criminal fines 3 The Supreme Court reversed holding there is no principled distinction between criminal fines and imprisonment for the purpose of Apprendi because Apprendi requires that any fact other than a prior conviction that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the statutory maximum must be submitted to the jury and determined beyond a reasonable doubt The rule preserves the historic fact finding function of the jury deciding that where a fine is sufficiently substantial to trigger the Sixth Amendment jury trial guarantee Apprendi applies See also editList of United States Supreme Court cases volume 567 Apprendi v New Jersey 2000 Alleyne v United States 2013 References edit Southern Union Co v United States 567 U S 343 2012 42 U S C 6901 et seq United States v Southern Union Co 630 F 3d 17 1st Cir 2010 Further reading editApplebaum Brynn 2015 Criminal Asset Forfeiture and the Sixth Amendment after Southern Union and Alleyne State Level Ramifications Vand L Rev 68 2 549 574 External links editText of Southern Union Co v United States 567 U S 343 2012 is available from CourtListener Google Scholar Justia Oyez oral argument audio Supreme Court slip opinion archived nbsp This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub You can help Wikipedia by expanding it vte Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Southern Union Co v United States amp oldid 1175150019, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,
