by Kent Scheidegger · Jan 27, 2020 2:19 pm
Justice Gorsuch concurred in today’s Supreme Court order regarding the “public charge” rule for immigration, writing an opinion discussing the broader problem of nationwide injunctions. And he managed to work in a Lord of the Rings allusion. Nice touch.
Continue reading . . .
by Kent Scheidegger · Jan 27, 2020 11:55 am
Ryan Sherrard of UC Santa Barbara has a draft study on SSRN titled “Ban the Box” Policies and Criminal Recidivism. Here is the abstract:
Employment has long been seen as a mechanism for reducing criminal recidivism. As such, many states and municipalities have tried to increase the employment prospects of ex-offenders through “Ban the Box” (BTB) policies, making it illegal to ask about an individual’s criminal history on a job application. There are, however, questions as to how effective these policies are at helping ex-offenders successfully stay out of prison. In addition, recent research has shown that BTB policies may lead employers to racially discriminate in hiring. Using administrative prison data, this paper examines the direct effect of BTB policies on rates of criminal recidivism. I find that while BTB policies don’t appear to reduce criminal recidivism overall, these policies may be exacerbating racial disparities. In particular, I show that being released into a labor market with a BTB policy is associated with higher rates of recidivism for black ex-offenders, with little to no eff ect for white ex-offenders. This result is robust to a number of specifications and sub-samples.
by Kent Scheidegger · Jan 23, 2020 10:06 pm
In 2016, in a case on remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, the Florida Supreme Court made a major error in the law of jury trial and capital sentencing, running roughshod over decades of precedent. That case was Hurst v. State, 202 So.2d 40 (Fla. 2016), on remand from Hurst v. Florida, 136 S.Ct. 616 (2016). Today, in State v. Poole, No. SC18-245, the state high court backs off from its Hurst opinion to the extent that it goes beyond what the U.S. Supreme Court required.
The framework for capital sentencing established by the Supreme Court in its 1976 and later decisions requires two additional steps before a convicted murderer can be sentenced to death. First, a fact-based “eligibility” finding must be made that at least one fact has been proved from a statutory list of factors beyond the basic elements of murder. Second, in the “selection” step, there must be a discretionary judgment that this is a case suitable for the death penalty, after considering mitigating as well as aggravating circumstances. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions in Hurst and the 2002 case of Ring v. Arizona require a jury trial and proof beyond a reasonable doubt for the eligibility step and only for the eligibility step. Continue reading . . .
by Kent Scheidegger · Jan 17, 2020 5:27 pm
The U.S. Supreme Court took up three sets of cases after its Friday conference. None of them are criminal or related cases. Amy Howe has a report on them. One of them may shed new light on the recurring and difficult problem of “standing,” i.e., who can appear in court to challenge or defend a law. This is a long-standing (no pun intended) problem in victims’ rights. When can victims of crime step up when government officials should but do not?
by Kent Scheidegger · Jan 17, 2020 4:56 pm
What does it take to wipe out a conviction? Normally, it takes reversal on appeal, a pardon from the governor (in most states) or president (for federal offenses), or a successful collateral attack on the conviction. In the latter, another court finds that the judgment was illegal.
Yesterday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit summarily reversed a decision of the federal district court and directed it to nullify a conviction upheld by the California Supreme Court. This action was not because the conviction is unjust, not because it is illegal under current law, not because the case has been made for creating a new rule, but purely because the California Attorney General, as lawyer for the prison warden, switched sides and stopped defending the conviction, over the vehement objection of the San Bernardino District Attorney, who represented the People in the criminal case. What is going on here?
by Kent Scheidegger · Jan 9, 2020 3:31 pm
Theodore Dalrymple has an article in the City Journal titled Effectively Legalizing Murder.
The recent decision of a French court would, if taken as precedent, in effect legalize murder—provided that the act was committed in a state of temporary madness caused by intoxication with cannabis.
by Kent Scheidegger · Jan 8, 2020 3:22 pm
Barry Latzer has this article with the above title in the National Review, regarding the law noted in today’s News Scan.
2020 is going to be a very good year in New York State — for criminals. As of January 1, the state’s new criminal-justice reforms took effect, including a law that compels judges to free thousands of arrested defendants, many of whom have committed violent crimes or are serious flight risks. The goal is to reduce incarceration in jails, but the methods are arbitrary and put the public at risk.
by Kent Scheidegger · Jan 8, 2020 11:04 am
Dan Walters has this column at Cal Matters, titled “Where political action is — and isn’t — in 2020.” The bottom line: “The Gascón-Lacey duel and the bail and sentencing ballot measures make criminal justice a significant subtheme of this year’s California elections.”
by Kent Scheidegger · Jan 7, 2020 1:49 pm
William McGurn has this column in the WSJ.
Just before Michael Bloomberg threw his billions into the ring … he apologized for the New York City Police Department’s use of a tactic popularly known as stop-and-frisk…. If he stays on this path, he’ll find himself spending more time apologizing for his record than running on it.
by Kent Scheidegger · Jan 7, 2020 11:32 am
As a follow-up to last term’s U.S. Supreme Court decision in Flowers v. Mississippi, Zack Budryk reports in The Hill:
A Mississippi district attorney who drew national attention by retrying a black man charged with murder six times announced Monday he will recuse himself from the case and asked the state attorney general’s office to retry it, according to The Associated Press.
SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED