The U.S. Supreme Court is currently considering whether a jury—as opposed to a judge—must make certain findings of fact necessary to revoke a defendant’s supervised release. A section of the relevant statute, 18 U.S.C. Section 3583(k), requires that convicted defendants return to prison for a minimum of five years, and up to a term of life, if they are found to have violated the terms of their supervised release. The statute requires only that a judge find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that such violation has occurred. The Supreme Court will decide whether this process violates a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury.

Andrew Haymond, an Oklahoma man, was convicted of possessing child pornography and sentenced to 38 months in prison to be followed by 10 years of supervised release. He completed his prison term, and—while serving his term of supervised release—he was again caught possessing child pornography. That conduct, which could have supported an independent criminal charge, constituted a violation of the terms of his supervised release. The government moved to revoke Haymond’s supervised release and return him to prison. The district court found, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Haymond knowingly possessed this material, triggering the mandatory minimum of five years re-imprisonment under Section 3583(k).