October Term 2004 · Docket 03-9168
Can courts use police reports to define ambiguous burglary convictions?
The dispute centers on whether judges may consult police reports to classify ambiguous state burglary convictions under federal law.
Verified source milestones
- — 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
Ms. Thompson argued the categorical method requires strict reliance on statutory elements.
She contended ambiguous convictions obtained under nongeneric statutes cannot be used as predicates.
Mr. Elwood argued police reports help clarify the specific property involved in the crime.
He stated the Court can look to conviction records to determine predicate status.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 29-7 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 29-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 14-33 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 14-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 34-38 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 34-38
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 4-12 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 4-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 42-44 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 42-44
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 16-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 16-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 25-25 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 25-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 29-31 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 29-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 36-36 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 36-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 42-42 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 42-42
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 1-2 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 1-2
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 23-36 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 23-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 8-12 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 8-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 1-6 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 1-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 12-16 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 12-16
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
Shepard v. United States tests the limits of the categorical method. This approach requires courts to look only at the statutory elements of a prior conviction. The case asks if courts may examine supporting documents when a statute covers multiple types of property.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 29-7 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 29-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 14-33 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 14-33
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 8, 2004.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 4-12 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 4-12
What each side wants
the side that brought the case wants the conviction excluded from federal sentencing calculations.
The government wants the conviction counted as a qualifying predicate offense.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 29-7 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 29-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 14-33 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 14-33
What each side says
the side that brought the case argues courts must ignore police reports and rely solely on statutory text.
The government argues police reports provide necessary context for ambiguous statutes.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 29-7 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 29-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 14-33 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 14-33
What the justices asked
Justice O'Connor asked if supporting documents show the property was a building, car, or boat.
Justice Scalia asked for a definition of a nongeneric burglary statute.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 34-38 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 34-38
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 42-44 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 42-44
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 16-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 16-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 25-25 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 25-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 29-31 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 29-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 36-36 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 36-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 42-42 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 42-42
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 1-2 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 1-2
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 23-36 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 23-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 8-12 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 8-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 1-6 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 1-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 12-16 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 12-16
Why it matters
This case defines how federal courts interpret state criminal records. It determines whether judges can use police reports to clarify ambiguous convictions. This process affects federal sentencing calculations for career criminals. It impacts the consistency of federal sentencing guidelines nationwide.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 29-7 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 29-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 14-33 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 14-33
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 34-38 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 34-38
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 4-12 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 4-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 42-44 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 42-44
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 16-21 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 16-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 25-25 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 25-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 29-31 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 29-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 36-36 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 36-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 42-42 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 42-42
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 1-2 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 1-2
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 23-36 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 23-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 8-12 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 8-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 1-6 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 1-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 12-16 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 12-16
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 26, lines 29-7 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 29-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 14-33 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 14-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 26, lines 29-7 — Transcript, file page 26, lines 29-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 14-33 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 14-33
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.