skip navigation
search

HARRIS V. UNITED STATES (00-10666)
243 F.3d 806, affirmed.
Syllabus
 
Opinion
[ Kennedy ]
Concurrence
[ O’Connor ]
Concurrence
[ Breyer ]
Dissent
[ Thomas ]
HTML version
PDF version
HTML version
PDF version
HTML version
PDF version
HTML version
PDF version
HTML version
PDF version

536 U.S. ____ (2002)

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES


No. 00—10666

WILLIAM JOSEPH HARRIS, PETITIONER v.
UNITED STATES

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

[June 24, 2002]
    Justice O’Connor, concurring.

    Petitioner bases his statutory argument that brandishing must be interpreted as an offense element on Jones v. United States, 526 U.S. 227 (1999). He bases his constitutional argument that regardless of how the statute is interpreted, brandishing must be charged in the indictment and found by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt on Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). As I dissented in Jones and Apprendi and still believe both were wrongly decided, I find it easy to reject petitioner’s arguments. Even assuming the validity of Jones and Apprendi, however, I agree that petitioner’s arguments that brandishing must be charged in the indictment and found by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt are unavailing. I therefore join Justice Kennedy’s opinion in its entirety.