United States v. Vigil
1:18-cr-00739
D.N.M.Aug 5, 2019Background
- Defendant Kevin Vigil charged in a two-count indictment including aggravated sexual abuse and a related 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) exposure that carries a 30-year mandatory minimum.
- Vigil moved to instruct the jury about the mandatory minimum penalty he faces if convicted.
- Vigil acknowledged controlling precedent forbids informing juries of consequences but argued recent Sixth Amendment cases (Booker, Apprendi, Blakely) support re-evaluating that rule and restoring a larger jury role.
- The government opposed, citing Tenth Circuit and other circuit authority that juries must not be told potential penalties and warning of jury nullification.
- The parties briefed and argued; the court reviewed precedent and scholarly commentary but concluded post-Booker caselaw is controlling.
- Court denied Vigil’s motion and ordered that juries not be instructed on mandatory minimum penalties.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (United States) | Defendant's Argument (Vigil) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the jury may be instructed about mandatory minimum penalties | Jurors should not be informed of penalties; informing them invites nullification and is barred by Tenth Circuit precedent | Recent Sixth Amendment jurisprudence and originalist arguments support telling jurors the consequences of conviction to restore their constitutional role | Denied — juries shall not be instructed on mandatory minimum penalties; controlling post-Booker caselaw prohibits it |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (holding Federal Sentencing Guidelines advisory after Sixth Amendment sentencing decisions)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) (fact that increases penalty beyond statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury)
- Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004) (applying Apprendi principle to sentencing guidelines)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) (Confrontation Clause ruling informing Sixth Amendment jurisprudence)
- United States v. Polizzi, 549 F. Supp. 2d 308 (E.D.N.Y. 2008) (district court discussing jury notification of penalties in light of Apprendi/Booker jurisprudence)