United States v. Haymond

Brief of FAMM and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondent.

Brief filed: 01/25/2019


United States v. Haymond

United States Supreme Court; Case No. 17-1672

Prior Decision

Decision below 869 F.3d 1153 (10th Cir. Aug. 31, 2017)

Question Presented

Whether the court of appeals erred in holding "unconstitutional and unenforceable" the portions of 18 U.S.C. 3583(k) that required the district court to revoke respondent's ten-year term of supervised release, and to impose five years of reimprisonment, following its finding by a preponderance of the evidence that respondent violated the conditions of his release by knowingly possessing child pornography.


18 U.S.C. 3583(k) impermissibly increases a defendant’s sentence based on judge-found facts about a new and different criminal offense. The Fifth and Sixth Amendments do not permit a defendant’s sentence to be increased beyond what the jury authorized based on judge-found facts. The mandatory sentencing enhancement in Section 3583(k) is not part of the penalty for the initial offense and therefore violates due process.

Continue reading below


Rakesh N. Kilaru, Wilkinson Walsh + Eskovitz LLP, Washington, DC; David Friedman, Wilkinson Walsh + Eskovitz LLP, Los Angeles CA; Chanakya A. Sethi and Angela Cai, Wilkinson Walsh + Eskovitz LLP, New York, NY; Peter Goldberger, Ardmore, PA; Mary Price, FAMM, Washington, DC; Barbara E. Bergman, NACDL, Tucson, AZ.

Explore keywords to find information

Featured Products