Burgess v. United States
|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
Mar 24, 2008
||Apr 16, 2008||TBD||Ginsburg||OT 2007|
Issue: 1. Whether the term "felony drug offense" as used in federal statutes requiring imposition of enhanced mandatory minimum 20 years' imprisonment when drug offender has a prior conviction for a felony drug offense must be read in pari materia with federal statutes defining both felony and felony drug offense so as to require imposition of minimum 20-year sentence only if prior drug conviction as both punishable by more than one year in prison and characterized as a felony by controlling law; 2. When the court finds that a criminal statute is ambiguous, must it then turn to the rule of lenity to resolve ambiguity?
Judgment: Affirmed, in an opinion by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on April 16, 2008.
- Opinion Recap: Burgess v. US (Jason Harrow)
- Court: Drunk driving not a violent felony (Lyle Denniston)
- Argument preview: Burgess v. United States (Scotus Staff)
- Court grants six new cases (Lyle Denniston)
Briefs and Documents
Merits briefs (via ABA)
- Brief for Petitioner Keith Lavon Burgess
- Brief for Respondent United States of America
- Reply Brief for Petitioner Keith Lavon Burgess