Legal Opinion

Richardson v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided June 1, 1999No. 97-8629PublishedCited by 765 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Breyer

A federal criminal statute forbids any “person” from “engaging] in a continuing criminal enterprise.” 84 Stat. 1264, 21 U. S. C. § 848(a). It defines “continuing criminal enterprise” (CCE) as involving a “violation]” of the drug statutes where “such violation is a part of a continuing series of violations.” § 848(e). We must decide whether a jury has to agree unanimously about which specific violations make up the “continuing series of violations.” We hold that the jury must do so. That is to say, a jury in a federal criminal ease brought under §848 must unanimously agree not only that the…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Almendarez-Torres v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
  2. Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley AuthoritySupreme Court of the United States · 1936
  3. Schad v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  4. Johnson v. LouisianaSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  5. McKoy v. North CarolinaSupreme Court of the United States · 1990

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by765 opinions

  1. Mathis v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2016
  2. Descamps v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2013
  3. Ngo v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 2005
  4. Robert Dale Murr v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2000
  5. Prystash v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1999

760 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API