by Kent Scheidegger · May 5, 2020 11:55 am
On March 18, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported, “Police Commissioner Danielle Outlaw notified commanders Tuesday that police will be delaying arrests for nonviolent crimes, including drug offenses, theft, and prostitution.”
Evidently the Chief did not anticipate the result reported by WPVI last Thursday. Continue reading . . .
by Kent Scheidegger · May 4, 2020 8:04 am
The U.S. Supreme Court moved swiftly today to resolve the question of whether its April 20 decision on nonunanimous juries applies retroactively to cases on federal habeas corpus. The correct answer is clearly “no.” Continue reading . . .
by Kent Scheidegger · Apr 30, 2020 12:40 pm
Multnomah County, Oregon DDA Mark McDonnell (Ret.) has this op-ed in Oregon Live with the above title. The article is addressed specifically to Oregon’s SB 1008 which essentially repealed a 1994 ballot measure, Measure 11. The concerns he raises are the same in many states, though. Continue reading . . .
by Kent Scheidegger · Apr 29, 2020 2:24 pm
This article in USA Today reports that mass testing in a North Carolina prison revealed far more prisoners infected with the Covid-19 virus than was previously believed. This result provides an additional reason not to release large numbers of prisoners, although that implication evidently did not occur to USA Today. Continue reading . . .
by Kent Scheidegger · Apr 27, 2020 11:45 am
This Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court will consider whether to take up the “sanctuary state” case, United States v. California, No. 19-532. This is the ninth consideration. Continue reading . . .
by Kent Scheidegger · Apr 27, 2020 7:42 am
Whenever the Supreme Court makes a significant change in the law — as it did last week when it overruled its prior approval of nonunanimous juries in state criminal cases, see this post — the question arises of what to do about cases that have already been tried under the old rule.
Today the high court sent back a bunch of cases from Louisiana and Oregon for reconsideration in light of the Ramos case. Justice Alito noted, “I concur in the judgment on the understanding that the Court is not deciding or expressing a view on whether the question was properly raised below but is instead leaving that question to be decided on remand.” Continue reading . . .
by Kent Scheidegger · Apr 24, 2020 10:56 am
The Federalist Society’s annual Executive Branch Review is online this year, for the obvious reason. Next Tuesday there are three webinars on separation of powers issues. None is directly focused on criminal law, but these issues do spill over into our work sometimes.
CLE credit is available with prior registration. The webinars are free. Continue reading . . .
by Kent Scheidegger · Apr 23, 2020 1:02 pm
The Supreme Court took up the case of Barton v. Barr, No. 18-725, to resolve a division of opinion among the courts of appeals regarding when a legal permanent resident alien is eligible for relief from deportation after being convicted of an offense that makes him deportable. Today the Court decided, 5-4, on the stricter of the two interpretations. Continue reading . . .
by Kent Scheidegger · Apr 22, 2020 7:01 am
Jason Riley has this column in the WSJ denouncing “coronavirus opportunism on both sides of the aisle.”
Mr. Trump will catch grief for using the coronavirus scare to push a mostly unrelated immigration agenda, but his political opponents are playing similar games. Springing criminals from jails and prisons to protect them from catching the virus is one of many examples, and potentially the most dangerous one. Since when did the well-being of convicts become more important than the safety of society? Continue reading . . .
by Kent Scheidegger · Apr 20, 2020 5:24 pm
All but two states require juries to be unanimous in serious criminal cases, and one of those states has already amended its constitution to require unanimity going forward. In a pair of cases nearly half a century ago, Apodaca v. Oregon and Johnson v. Louisana, the Court upheld these two state’s non-unanimous jury laws by a 5-4 vote, but the 5 could not agree on a single rationale.
Today in Ramos v. Louisiana, No. 18-5924, the Court decided otherwise by a 6-3 vote. Part of Justice Gorsuch’s opinion is joined by four other Justices, making it the opinion of the Court, and part is not. The divisions over precedent strike me as more interesting than the divisions over jury trial. Continue reading . . .
SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED