November 2023 Federal ACCA Erlinger Supreme Court Developments editorial image showing abstract Erlinger ACCA different-occasions review, Sixth Amendment jury factfinding, Supreme Court drug-case watch, safety-valve eligibility, serious-drug-offense predicates, forensic expert testimony, mens rea evidence, and federal post-conviction monitoring.
by

Latest Updates

November 2023 Federal ACCA Erlinger Supreme Court Developments

Special Thanksgiving Edition covering the Supreme Court’s grant of review in Erlinger v. United States, ACCA different-occasions findings, Sixth Amendment jury-trial rights, major drug-related Supreme Court cases, federal sentencing issues, and federal relief screening considerations.

Federal Relief Developments Overview

November 2023 Federal ACCA Erlinger Supreme Court Developments centered on the Supreme Court’s decision to review whether the Constitution requires a jury to find, or the defendant to admit, that prior convictions were committed on occasions different from one another before the Armed Career Criminal Act can increase a federal sentence.

This Special Thanksgiving Edition highlights Erlinger v. United States, ACCA different-occasions findings, Wooden v. United States, Sixth Amendment sentencing rights, the prior-conviction exception, federal drug sentencing cases on the Supreme Court docket, safety-valve review, forfeiture due process, ACCA serious-drug-offense review, Confrontation Clause expert testimony, and mens rea expert testimony in drug prosecutions.

This federal relief update is provided for educational and informational purposes only. It is not legal advice and does not create legal representation.

Supreme Court Watch

Erlinger v. United States: ACCA Different-Occasions Review Granted

The Supreme Court granted review in Erlinger v. United States, No. 23-370, to decide whether the Constitution requires that a jury find, or the defendant admit, that prior offenses were committed on occasions different from one another before a defendant may be sentenced under the Armed Career Criminal Act.

ACCA can impose a 15-year mandatory minimum sentence when a person convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) has three qualifying prior violent-felony or serious-drug-offense convictions committed on different occasions.

The case was especially important because, after Wooden v. United States, the “different occasions” inquiry can involve more than simply counting prior convictions. It may require factual review of timing, location, sequence, victims, and whether prior offenses were separate criminal episodes.

The government agreed that the Sixth Amendment requires a jury to find, or the defendant to admit, the different-occasions facts. The Supreme Court later held that the Fifth and Sixth Amendments require a unanimous jury to make that finding beyond a reasonable doubt.

Federal Relief Consideration: ACCA cases may deserve review where a judge, rather than a jury or defendant admission, found that prior convictions were committed on different occasions.

Why Erlinger Matters for ACCA Sentencing

Erlinger matters because the difference between ordinary § 922(g) sentencing and ACCA sentencing can be enormous. ACCA can raise the sentencing floor to a 15-year mandatory minimum.

When prior convictions occurred close in time, near the same location, against related victims, or as part of a single criminal episode, the “different occasions” inquiry can be fact-intensive.

Federal Relief Consideration: ACCA screening may require reviewing the indictment, plea agreement, PSR, sentencing transcript, prior charging documents, plea colloquies, judgments, offense dates, offense locations, victim information, and whether different-occasions facts were admitted or found by a jury.

Potential Sixth Amendment Importance

The source update noted that Erlinger had the potential to become more than a narrow ACCA case because it involved the relationship between prior convictions, sentencing enhancements, and jury-trial rights.

For many years, courts have treated the existence of prior convictions differently from other facts that increase statutory punishment. But the different-occasions inquiry can involve factual findings beyond the bare existence of prior convictions.

Federal Relief Consideration: Cases involving recidivist enhancements may deserve review where a sentencing judge made disputed factual findings about the nature, timing, sequence, or relationship of prior convictions.

Supreme Court Drug-Case Watch

Several Drug-Related Criminal Cases on the Supreme Court Docket

The source update also noted that the Supreme Court’s 2023 Term included several criminal cases connected to drug prosecutions, drug sentencing, forfeiture, expert testimony, and ACCA predicate review.

These cases included:

  • Pulsifer v. United States, involving federal drug safety-valve eligibility and criminal-history disqualifiers
  • Culley v. Marshall, involving due process rules for civil forfeiture proceedings
  • Brown v. United States and Jackson v. United States, involving ACCA serious-drug-offense predicate timing
  • Smith v. Arizona, involving Confrontation Clause rules for substitute forensic expert testimony
  • Diaz v. United States, involving expert testimony on mens rea in a drug-trafficking prosecution

Federal Relief Consideration: Drug cases may deserve review where sentencing depended on safety-valve eligibility, forfeiture procedures, ACCA drug predicates, substitute lab testimony, forensic drug analysis, or expert testimony about knowledge and intent.

Pulsifer: Safety-Valve Eligibility

Pulsifer v. United States involved the First Step Act’s safety-valve provision for certain federal drug defendants. The dispute focused on how to interpret the criminal-history disqualifier in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(1).

The Supreme Court later adopted the government’s reading, limiting safety-valve eligibility for defendants with any of the listed disqualifying criminal-history features.

Federal Relief Consideration: Safety-valve cases may deserve review where the PSR, plea agreement, or sentencing record includes disputed criminal-history points, prior three-point offenses, two-point violent offenses, mandatory minimum exposure, or First Step Act safety-valve eligibility.

Culley: Forfeiture Due Process

Culley v. Marshall involved due process in civil forfeiture proceedings. Although civil forfeiture is not limited to drug cases, forfeiture often appears in drug-related investigations and prosecutions.

Federal Relief Consideration: Forfeiture cases may deserve review where property was seized, delayed return procedures were disputed, forfeiture was tied to alleged drug activity, or a person lacked meaningful opportunity to challenge continued possession of property.

Brown and Jackson: ACCA Serious Drug Offense Predicates

Brown v. United States and Jackson v. United States involved how courts identify whether prior state drug convictions qualify as ACCA serious-drug-offense predicates when federal drug schedules have changed.

The Supreme Court later held that courts should use the federal drug schedules in effect at the time of the prior state drug offense.

Federal Relief Consideration: ACCA drug-predicate review may require examining the prior state statute, controlled substance, conviction date, federal schedule history, Shepard documents, and whether three valid ACCA predicates remain.

Smith v. Arizona: Substitute Expert Testimony

Smith v. Arizona involved whether a prosecution expert could testify about drug-analysis work performed by another forensic analyst who did not testify.

The Supreme Court later held that when the absent analyst’s statements support the substitute expert’s opinion only if those statements are true, the statements are admitted for their truth. If those statements are testimonial, the Confrontation Clause may be violated.

Federal Relief Consideration: Drug, toxicology, DNA, firearm, or forensic cases may deserve review where a substitute expert testified based on another analyst’s lab notes, report, testing, or conclusions without the original analyst appearing for cross-examination.

Diaz v. United States: Expert Testimony on Mens Rea

Diaz v. United States involved expert testimony concerning knowledge and mental state in a drug-trafficking prosecution.

Expert testimony about what defendants generally know, how couriers operate, or how drug-trafficking organizations function may raise important evidentiary issues, especially when the testimony approaches an opinion about the defendant’s actual mental state.

Federal Relief Consideration: Drug mens rea cases may deserve review where expert testimony was used to prove knowledge, intent, courier awareness, drug-trafficking practices, or the likelihood that a defendant knew drugs were present.

Why Supreme Court Watch Matters for Federal Relief

Supreme Court criminal cases can affect federal relief even before final decisions are issued because they help identify issues that may need preservation, record review, or case screening.

When a Supreme Court case later changes the law, people with pending direct appeals, timely § 2255 motions, preserved objections, or qualifying post-conviction claims may need careful review to determine whether the decision applies.

Federal Relief Consideration: A case-specific review may be needed to determine whether a Supreme Court decision applies on direct appeal, collateral review, compassionate release, § 2241, § 2255, sentence reduction, or another procedural vehicle.

Fast Screening Considerations

A case-specific review may be especially important where any of the following issues appear in the record:

  • ACCA sentence based on judge-found different-occasions facts
  • Prior convictions occurred close in time, at nearby locations, or as part of one episode
  • § 922(g) conviction enhanced to 15 years under ACCA
  • Federal drug mandatory minimum with safety-valve eligibility dispute
  • Prior state drug conviction used as an ACCA serious-drug-offense predicate
  • Forfeiture issue tied to drug investigation or delayed property-return process
  • Drug lab testimony presented through substitute expert
  • Expert testimony used to prove knowledge or intent in a drug case
  • Pending appeal or post-conviction case involving preserved Sixth Amendment, Confrontation Clause, ACCA, or expert-testimony issues
  • BOP, First Step Act, compassionate release, home confinement, or sentence-reduction questions

What This Means for Federal Prisoners and Families

The Special Thanksgiving Edition shows how Supreme Court review can signal important federal relief issues before final opinions are issued. Erlinger was especially important for people sentenced under ACCA based on judge-found different-occasions facts.

The broader Supreme Court docket also showed important issues involving federal drug safety-valve relief, forfeiture due process, ACCA serious-drug-offense predicates, forensic expert testimony, and expert testimony about mens rea.

These issues often require reviewing the indictment, plea agreement, PSR, sentencing transcript, prior conviction records, jury instructions, expert testimony, lab reports, forfeiture records, BOP records, and appellate history.

Why a Written Case Evaluation May Help

A written case evaluation can help identify whether a federal case involves ACCA different-occasions issues, safety-valve eligibility concerns, serious-drug-offense predicate problems, forfeiture due process issues, substitute forensic expert testimony, drug mens rea expert testimony, BOP relief questions, compassionate-release factors, First Step Act issues, or other post-conviction remedies.

Because many federal relief arguments are highly fact-specific and circuit-specific, families should avoid relying on general rumor or broad headlines. A structured review can help determine what issues may actually be available.

Related APEX Federal Relief Resources