Author: Kent Scheidegger

Damage Control in SCOTUS on “Indian Country”

by · Jun 29, 2022 1:31 pm

The U.S. Supreme Court today decided a major case on prosecution jurisdiction in Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, No. 21-429. This is an example of the Court in damage-control mode. An earlier, disruptive, and legally dubious decision has had severe impacts on criminal justice. Rather than overrule it, the Court acts to limit the damage.

Two years ago, the Court decided 5-4 in McGirt v. Oklahoma that large portions of that state were still “Indian country”* because Congress had not formally diminished or disestablished the original reservations, even though the land in question had not been part of a reservation in practice for a very long time. Continue reading . . .

Deference, Discovery, and Making AEDPA Actually Reduce Delay

by · Jun 21, 2022 2:21 pm

When Congress enacted the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, the first title was habeas corpus reform. It was intended to achieve the “effective death penalty” part by drastically cutting the delays in carrying out capital sentencing, at least the part attributable to the federal courts.

It did not work because it was not properly implemented. But 26 years later we may finally see that change. Today’s decision of the Supreme Court in Shoop v. Twyford, No. 21-511 is a large step in that direction. Continue reading . . .

Attempted Robbery Is Not Violent?

by · Jun 21, 2022 9:02 am

The U.S. Supreme Court continued its chip-by-chip undermining of federal sentence enhancements for violent crimes, making one more narrowing of the definition of “violent felony.” In United States v. Taylor, No. 20-1459, it’s attempted robbery under the Hobbs Act that bites the dust. This will come as no surprise to those who have watched the steady parade of decisions excluding from the term “violent felony” crimes that common sense would tell us are violent. See, e.g., this post. Continue reading . . .

Go Ahead and Say “Never” on Bivens Extensions

by · Jun 10, 2022 11:32 am

Way back in Reconstruction, Congress created a civil cause of action against state and local officials who violate federal constitutional rights. Today, that statute is 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Congress did not, however, create a parallel right to sue federal agents. In 1971, the Supreme Court made one up anyway in the case of Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents.

The Court extended Bivens to a couple of new contexts in the early years afterward but soon came to realize it had overreached. In Wednesday’s decision in Egbert v. Boule, Justice Thomas notes in the opinion of the Court, “Over the past 42 years, however, we have declined 11 times to imply a similar cause of action for other alleged constitutional violations.” In Egbert, the Court declined to extend Bivens to a claim of allegedly excessive force allegedly used by a Border Patrol agent against an American citizen on U.S. soil. Continue reading . . .

Central Valley DA Race Still Pending Due to Ballot Problem

by · Jun 9, 2022 4:41 pm

We previously reported a result in the race for District Attorney for San Joaquin County in California’s Central Valley. It turns out that was premature because of a massive problem with misprinted mail-in ballots with faulty bar codes. Two days after the election, only a fifth of the total vote has been reported. I have temporarily unpublished the post and will republish it with any necessary corrections when we have a more reliable result.

Cal. Law Giving Parole to LWOP-Sentenced Juveniles Struck Down

by · Jun 7, 2022 3:12 pm

A California Superior Court judge ruled Friday that a statute passed by the Legislature to give parole eligibility to murderers sentenced to life without parole for murders committed before their eighteenth birthdays is unconstitutional. The law providing for juvenile life-without-parole (JLWOP) sentences was enacted by the people by initiative, and the legislative statute ran afoul of a state constitutional provision limiting the Legislature’s ability to amend initiative statutes.

Section 190.5(b) of the Penal Code was enacted by Proposition 115 of 1990. For the types of first-degree murder that would be capital crimes if committed by an adult, that law gives the trial judge discretion to choose between a sentence of life without parole or 25 years to life. In 2017, the California Legislature enacted SB 394, which added subdivision (b)(4) to Penal Code section 3051. That subdivision authorizes parole after 25 years to inmates sentenced to life without parole under section 190.5(b). The bill’s sponsor told the Legislature that this change was necessary because the U.S. Supreme Court had outlawed life without parole for juveniles in Miller v. Alabama (2012). That was a patent falsehood. Miller held no such thing. Last year in Jones v. Mississippi, the high court further clarified that for juvenile life without parole “a State’s discretionary sentencing system is both constitutionally necessary and constitutionally sufficient.” Continue reading . . .

SF DA Putting Victims First?

by · May 31, 2022 1:22 pm

Heather Knight reports for the SF Chronicle:

As [SF DA Chesa] Boudin faces a June 7 recall, it’s important for voters to understand what he promised and whether his office is delivering. And four former staffers and one current staffer in his Victim Services Division told me that victims are regularly not updated on progress in their cases, meaning their voices remain unheard as prosecutors work quickly to resolve them. Continue reading . . .

Memorial Day

by · May 30, 2022 6:03 pm

Scout placing flags at cemetery

 

 

 

Today let us all remember that freedom is not free and honor those who gave their lives in its defense.

Delay and Failure to Accept Responsibility For It

by · May 24, 2022 1:51 pm

Along with the two Arizona capital cases decided yesterday (see this post), the Supreme Court turned down another, the case of one of the longest-term residents of death row.

Justice Breyer penned another of his opinions lamenting how awful it is for these murderers to have death sentences hanging over their heads so long. And once again he failed to acknowledge how much the Supreme Court itself is at fault for this situation. Continue reading . . .