The U.S. Supreme Court today decided to use an Oregon case to further clarify a series of cases that require juries -- not judges -- to answer factual questions that are used to determine a convicted criminal's prison sentence.
The question in the Oregon case is whether a jury must decide certain facts before a judge can impose consecutive sentences.
The Oregon case involves Thomas Eugene Ice, an apartment manager who was convicted of burglary and sexually abusing a young girl.
For sentencing purposes, the judge considered the two burglary convictions as separate events, which resulted in a longer prison term.
On appeal, the Oregon Supreme Court reversed, saying the fact that the jury convicted Ice of two counts of burglary was not enough for the judge to impose the longer sentence under the U.S. Constitution.
The Oregon Department of Justice appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
-- Ashbel "Tony" Green; firstname.lastname@example.org