Swipe to navigate through the chapters of this book
Criminal punishments often include a period of supervised release after the completion of a prison sentence. During this time, the government can re-invoke prison time if the convict commits a further offense. But does re-imprisonment following a determination of guilt by a judge grounded in a preponderance of the evidence—but not a jury grounded in evidence beyond a reasonable doubt—violate the protections of the Constitution? Haymond presents deep questions about the constitutional standards for post-conviction supervision of criminals.
Please log in to get access to this content
To get access to this content you need the following product:
Haymond Alito dissent, page 9.
In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970), Harlan concurrence, page 372.
Robert McClendon, “Supervising Supervised Release: Where the Courts Went Wrong on Revocation and How U.S. v. Haymond Finally Got It Right,” 54 Tulsa Law Review 175 (2018), pages 180–181.
Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972) at 480.
McClendon, “Supervising Supervised Release,” page 182.
Haymond Alito dissent, pages 9–17.
Haymond Gorsuch plurality, pages 9–11.
Ibid., page 17.
Haymond Alito dissent, pages 1–9.
Haymond’s Brief to Supreme Court, page 7.
- U.S. v. Haymond on Re-imprisonment Without a Jury Trial
- Springer International Publishing
- Sequence number
- Chapter number
- Chapter 7
Neuer Inhalt/© Stellmach, Neuer Inhalt/© Maturus, Pluta Logo/© Pluta, Rombach Rechtsanwälte/© Rombach Rechtsanwälte