Today, the Supreme Court had another ACCA case that it unpacked, Wooden v. United States. The Court held: “Wooden’s ten burglary offenses arising from a single criminal episode did not occur on different ‘occasions’ and thus count as only one prior conviction for purposes of ACCA.”
Okay, fine. But the really interesting stuff was happening in the concurrences, where Justice Gorsuch (joined mostly by Justice Sotomayor) laid out the case for a more fulsome application of the Rule of Lenity:
Of course, most ordinary people today don’t spend their leisure time reading statutes—and they probably didn’t in Justice Marshall’s and Justice Story’s time either. But len- ity’s emphasis on fair notice isn’t about indulging a fantasy. It is about protecting an indispensable part of the rule of law—the promise that, whether or not individuals happen to read the law, they can suffer penalties only for violating standing rules announced in advance. As the framers un- derstood, “subjecting . . . men to punishment for things which, when they were done, were breaches of no law . . . ha[s] been, in all ages, the favorite and most formidable instrumen[t] of tyranny.” The Federalist No. 84, pp. 511–512 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton); see also McBoyle v. United States, 283 U. S. 25, 27 (1931) (“Although it is not likely that a criminal will carefully consider the text of the law . . . fair warning should be given to the world in language that the common world will understand”).
I particularly like this thought from the concluding paragraph:
The statute contains little guidance, and reasonable doubts about its application will arise often. When they do, they should be resolved in favor of liberty. Today, the Court does not consult lenity’s rule, but neither does it forbid lower courts from doing so in doubtful cases. That course is the sound course. Under our rule of law, punishments should never be products of judicial conjecture about this factor or that one. They should come only with the assent of the people’s elected representatives and in laws clear enough to supply “fair warning . . . to the world.” McBoyle, 283 U. S., at 27.
Full Disclosure -- I signed onto the NACDL amicus brief filed in Wooden, which raised the following issue and which was cited by the Court in fn3:
Two amici curiae have briefed another question arising from ACCA’s
occasions clause: whether the Sixth Amendment requires that a jury, rather than a judge, resolve whether prior crimes occurred on a single occasion. See Brief for National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
13–19; Brief for National Association of Federal Defenders 21–32. We do
not address that issue because Wooden did not raise it.
Here's what Gorsuch says about it in a footnote of his own:
A constitutional question simmers beneath the surface of today’s
case. The Fifth and Sixth Amendments generally require the government in criminal cases to prove every fact essential to an individual’s
punishment to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v.
Haymond, 588 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2019) (plurality opinion) (slip op., at
5–6). In this case, however, only judges found the facts relevant to Mr.
Wooden’s punishment under the Occasions Clause, and they did so under
only a preponderance of the evidence standard. Because Mr. Wooden did
not raise a constitutional challenge to his sentence, the Court does not
consider the propriety of this practice. But there is little doubt we will
have to do so soon. See United States v. Dudley, 5 F. 4th 1249, 1273–
1278 (CA11 2021) (Newsom, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part)
(questioning whether the Occasions Clause inquiry can be squared with
the Constitution); United States v. Perry, 908 F. 3d 1126, 1134–1136
(CA8 2018) (Stras, J., concurring) (same); United States v. Thompson,
421 F. 3d 278, 287–295 (CA4 2005) (Wilkins, C. J., dissenting) (same).
And it is hard not to wonder: If a jury must find the facts supporting a
punishment under the Occasions Clause beyond a reasonable doubt, how
may judges impose a punishment without equal certainty about the law’s
application to those facts?
