United States v. Allen Ray Jordan

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that, when drug quantity was neither alleged in the indictment nor proved to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt, the omission was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt
• holding that, when drug quantity was neither alleged in the indictment nor proved to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt, the omission was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt
• explaining that a defendant must first make a “substantial preliminary UNITED STATES V. BARNES 13 showing, by a preponderance of the evidence,” that the warrant was infirm in order to prevail on a motion to suppress
• explaining that in such cases courts “do not have the ability . . . simply to determine whether a proper jury instruction would have made any difference” because the element hasn’t been litigated
• distinguishing prior case where court found that defendant's substantial rights were not affected where drug quantity, although alleged in the indictment, was not found by jury beyond a reasonable doubt
• distinguishing prior case where court found that defendant’s substantial rights were not affected where drug quantity, although alleged in the indictment, was not found by jury beyond a reasonable doubt

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).