Criminal Law Paper

The Supreme Court case that I chose was Edward Dorsey vs. The United States. This case is argued on April, 17 2012 and the decision was made on June 21, 2012. This case has to do with the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986. The case also has to do with the Fair Sentencing Act of 1984. This case was interesting because it has to do with two different acts that seem to contradict one another. This case has to do with Edward Dorsey and was consolidated with Hill vs. The United States. Hill. “The case number 11−5721, petitioner Hill unlawfully sold 53 grams of crack in 2007, but was not sentenced until December 2010. Sentencing him to the 10-year minimum mandated by the 1986 Drug Act, the District Judge ruled that the Fair Sentencing Act’s 5-year minimum for selling that amount of crack did not apply to those whose offenses were committed before the Act’s effective date.” Hill vs. United States 368 U.S. 424 (1962) When it came to the Edward Dorsey vs. The United States Edward Dorsey illegally sold 5.5 grams of crack in 2008. In September 2010, the District Judge sentenced him to the 1986 Drug Act’s 10-year minimum, finding that it applied because Dorsey had a prior drug conviction and declining to apply the Fair Sentencing Act, under which there would be no mandated minimum term for an amount less than 28 grams, because Dorsey’s offense predated that Act’s effective date. Edward Dorsey vs. United States 11-5683. Dorsey is challenging the execution, not the imposition of the sentence. These cases had to do with the fair sentencing act because the act was used differently in these cases. When Hill was convicted he received the 10 year sentenced that the Act of 1986 law was imposed. Dorsey was sentenced to the same amount of time as Hill and he sold only 5.5 grams of powder. They ran the cases together in my opinion because the acts contradicted one another. When Edward Dorsey pleaded guilty it was before the Sentencing Act of 2010 but he was not found guilty till after the...