Scalia, J., concurring JONES v. UNITED STATES ____ U. S. ____ (1999) SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 97–6203

NATHANIEL JONES, PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES

on writ of certiorari to the united states court ofappeals for the ninth circuit

[March 24, 1999]

Justice Scalia, concurring.

In dissenting in Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 118 S. Ct. 1219 (1998), I suggested the possibility, and in dissenting in Monge v. California, 118 S. Ct. 2246, 2255-2257 (1998), I set forth as my considered view, that it is unconstitutional to remove from the jury the assessment of facts that alter the congressionally prescribed range of penalties to which a criminal defendant is exposed. Because I think it necessary to resolve all ambiguities in criminal statutes in such fashion as to avoid violation of this constitutional principle, I join the opinion of the Court.