⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

We hear United States versus Larry Glenn the Third in the Sixth Circuit. Glenn appeals a federal criminal judgment entered after a jury trial for possessing a firearm and ammunition as a felon. That gun offense is the starting point. The Armed Career Criminal Act, often called A C C A, can make the punishment much more severe. It requires at least fifteen years in prison when a person convicted of unlawful possession under the relevant federal law has three qualifying prior convictions for violent felonies or serious drug offenses, committed on different occasions. Three convictions do not necessarily mean three occasions. Keep three questions separate: who was convicted of an earlier crime; whether that crime meets the statute's definitions; and whether the crimes happened on different occasions. In Wooden versus United States, the Supreme Court explained that the occasions inquiry considers timing, location, and the character and relationship of the offenses. Several crimes can belong to one criminal episode. Erlinger versus United States addresses who makes that occasions finding. The Supreme Court held that a jury, not a sentencing judge acting alone, must find separate occasions unanimously and beyond a reasonable doubt. That holding does not turn every question about an old conviction into the same jury question. You will also hear about Shepard documents: a limited group of court records, such as charging documents, written plea agreements and plea-hearing transcripts, used to identify the offense underlying a prior conviction. That limited inquiry is different from deciding every historical fact about the crime. The Confrontation Clause concerns a criminal defendant's right to confront adverse witnesses. And lay opinion differs from expert testimony: it must rest on the witness's perception, be helpful, and not depend on scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge. Those distinctions help frame the evidence questions in this argument.

United States v. Larry Glenn III (No. 25-1569) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, argued October 20, 2026.