United States v. Cotton
- Decided
- May 20, 2002
- Docket
- 01-687
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 3,303 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that “defects in an indictment do not deprive a court of its power to adjudicate a case.” — Ricky Wayne Short v. United States (2006)
- holding that sentencing in excess of a statutory maximum did not deprive the sentencing court of jurisdiction — Payne Ex Rel. D.P. v. Peninsula School District (2011)
- holding that Apprendi error did not "seriously affect the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings" — William T. Coleman v. United States (2003)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court.
In Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U. S. 466 (2000), we held that “[o]ther than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury, and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Id., at 490. In federal prosecutions, such facts must also be charged in the indictment.
Statutes cited
Cite this
United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625 (2002)Read the full opinion
Free account needed
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.