<div style="margin: 10px;"><img style="float: right;" src="{staticroot}files/resources/sosnovlen600px.jpg" alt="" width="33%" /></div>
<p>A recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court case that resulted in the state&rsquo;s mandatory minimum sentences for dealing drugs near a school being declared unconstitutional will be a learning experience for students who take criminal law classes with Professor <a href="ipl://20//WyIxMzIiXQ==">Len Sosnov</a>.</p>
<p>Professor Sosnov had been writing and lecturing on the issue of Pennsylvania&rsquo;s mandatory minimum sentence laws for The Pennsylvania Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (PACDL). The attorneys from the Chester County Public Defender&rsquo;s Office representing defendant Kyle J. Hopkins asked Professor Sosnov to join the defense team as special counsel. Professor Sosnov served as the principal author of the brief and argued the case before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.</p>
<p>&ldquo;The impact of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision is that several mandatory minimum sentencing statutes in Pennsylvania are now completely invalid. Unless and until the Legislature decides to enact new statutes with constitutional procedures judges have discretionary sentencing power unfettered by mandatory minimums where they have been invalidated,&rdquo; says Professor Sosnov of the ruling&rsquo;s importance.</p>
<p>Professor Sosnov&rsquo;s interest in invalidating these mandatory minimum sentencing&nbsp;statutes goes back over 30 yrs to when he served as counsel in <em>McMillan v. Pennsylvania</em>, and lost that case in the U.S Supreme Court in 1986. A Supreme Court decision in <em>Alleyne v. United States </em>in 2013 overruled McMillan and formed the basis for the successful challenge in the Hopkins case.</p>
<p>The court experience should serve Sosnov&rsquo;s Criminal Procedure 2 and Criminal Law students well when they study the issues surrounding mandatory minimum sentencing.</p>