United States v. O’brien

Summary

The Court held that the machinegun provision in §924(c)(1)(B)(ii) is an element of the offense, not a sentencing factor, because it substantially increases the mandatory minimum sentence and the 1998 statutory amendments did not clearly indicate a change in congressional policy. The Government therefore had to charge the machinegun allegation in the indictment and prove it to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Justice Stevens, concurring, would have treated any fact increasing a legally prescribed sentence as an element, while Justice Thomas, concurring in the judgment, would have adopted the same constitutional rule without applying the Court's statutory five-factor analysis.