Alleyne v. United States - Post-Argument SCOTUScast
SCOTUScast 2-4-13 featuring Ryan Scott
SCOTUScast 2-4-13 featuring Ryan Scott
On January 14, 2013 the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Alleyne v. United States. The question here is whether the Supreme Court’s 2002 decision in Harris v. United States--that the Constitution does not require a jury to determine facts used to increase a mandatory minimum sentence--should be overruled.
To discuss the case, we have Ryan Scott, who is an Associate Professor at Indiana University Maurer School of Law.
[Return to the SCOTUScast menu]
Associate Professor, Indiana University Maurer School of Law
Professor Scott joined the Indiana University Maurer School of Law faculty in 2009. He teaches and writes on criminal law and procedure, statutory interpretation, and federal courts. Professor Scott's research examines structural and procedural interactions between the judicial branch and other branches of government, particularly in the criminal context. He has written on efforts to control the composition of the judiciary, including the judicial appointments process, legislative strategies for encouraging judicial retirements, and the semi-retirement program of senior judges. Professor Scott also studies efforts to influence judicial decision making directly by placing constraints on judicial discretion. His current project examines changes in inter-judge sentencing disparity under the United States Sentencing Guidelines, one of Congress's most ambitious efforts to restrict judges in the performance of a historically discretionary function.After graduating from law school, Professor Scott clerked for Judge Michael W. McConnell of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. He then served as a Bristow Fellow in the Office of the Solicitor General of the United States. Before joining the faculty, he worked for two years as an associate in the Supreme Court and appellate practice at O'Melveny & Myers LLP in Washington, D.C.