I’ve posted a few times on recent Armed Career Criminal Act cases (e.g., here).  With several Supreme Court decisions last term on the scope of the ACCA, this has been an especially dynamic area of federal sentencing law.  The cases nicely illustrate one of the fundamental problems with the ACCA, which is that Congress sought to single out certain categories of prior state convictions as triggers for the ACCA fifteen-year mandatory minimum, when each state criminal justice system has its own idiosyncratic structure, terminology, and practice norms.  Congress did not, and could not, take into account the particularities of fifty different systems when drafting the ACCA.  As a result, the courts have faced a steady stream of difficult cases requiring them to determine which types of prior convictions from which states actually count as a “violent felony” or a “serious drug offense” (three of which trigger the fifteen-year minimum).  The Supreme Court’s May decision in United States v. Rodriquez provides a good example of the difficulty.