October Term 2001 · Docket 01-687
Does a federal drug sentence require proof of drug quantity beyond a reasonable doubt?
The dispute centers on whether a judge can impose a higher sentence based on drug amounts not proven to a jury.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Michael Dreeben argued that this case reflects typical federal drug prosecutions.
He noted that these trials occurred before a recent Supreme Court decision.
Sullivan argued that the sentence did not match the jury's verdict.
He stated that the government may not have presented drug quantities to the grand jury.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 19-45 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 19-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-23 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 31-21 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 31-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 4-6 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 4-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 7-9 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 7-9
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case tests the scope of jury rights in federal drug trials. It follows a lower court action that allowed a judge to set a sentence based on unproven facts.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 19-45 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 19-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-23 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 31-21 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 31-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 4-6 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 4-6
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on April 15, 2002.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 7-9 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 7-9
What each side wants
The government wants to keep the current sentence structure for drug cases.
Cotton wants the sentence reduced because the jury did not prove the drug amount.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 19-45 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 19-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-23 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 31-21 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 31-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 4-6 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 4-6
What each side says
The government argues that judges can consider drug amounts without a jury finding.
Cotton argues that any fact increasing the sentence must be proven to a jury.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 19-45 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 19-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-23 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 31-21 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 31-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 4-6 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 4-6
What the justices asked
Chief Justice Rehnquist asked if the indictment and verdict matched the final sentence.
Justice Souter asked if the government presented drug quantities to the grand jury.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 7-9 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 7-9
Why it matters
This case defines the limits of judicial sentencing power in federal drug prosecutions. It determines whether judges can rely on unproven facts to increase prison terms. The outcome shapes the balance between prosecutorial discretion and defendant rights.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 19-45 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 19-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-23 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 31-21 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 31-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 4-6 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 4-6
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 7-9 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 7-9
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 19-45 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 19-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-23 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 31-21 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 31-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 4-6 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 4-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 19-45 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 19-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-23 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 31-21 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 31-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 53, lines 4-6 — Transcript, file page 53, lines 4-6
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.