United States v. O’brien — Stevens, J., Concurring

Summary

Justice Stevens, J., concurring, argues that facts triggering mandatory minimum sentences function as elements of a criminal offense and require proof beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury. He criticizes McMillan v. Pennsylvania for allowing judicial factfinding on these factors by a preponderance of the evidence and urges its overruling in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey. He concurring in the judgment because the Court reaches the statutory result, despite his disagreement with the legal reasoning that preserves McMillan. Justice Thomas, concurring in the judgment, agrees that such mandatory minimum facts require jury findings under the Sixth Amendment.