by Kent Scheidegger · Feb 26, 2020 2:25 pm
Well, that didn’t take long. On Monday the parties asked the U.S. Supreme Court to drop the now-moot juvenile life-without-parole (JLWOP) case of the D.C. Sniper, Jr., as noted in this post. I expected the Court to take up the case of Newton v. Indiana, No. 17-1511, presenting the same issue. Sure enough, after nearly a year on hold pending Malvo, the Newton case is suddenly on the conference list for this Friday.
by Kent Scheidegger · Feb 24, 2020 4:38 pm
As noted in my post earlier today, the Virginia Legislature has enacted a law that eliminates, for that state, the dispute underlying the U.S. Supreme Court case of Mathena v. Malvo, No. 18-217. There is no doubt that the case should now be removed from the Supreme Court’s docket, leaving the issue to be decided in another case. It does matter how this is done, however.
Virginia had successfully asked the Court to take up the case to decide this question:
Did the Fourth Circuit err in concluding that a decision of this Court (Montgomery) addressing whether a new constitutional rule announced in an earlier decision (Miller) applies retroactively on collateral review is properly interpreted as modifying and substantially expanding the very rule whose retroactivity was in question?
Virginia then proceeded to argue that the answer is “no.” That is correct, in my opinion, and it remains correct despite the legislative change mooting the underlying question. Why should this erroneous precedent stand until the Supreme Court is able to decide the issue in another case?
by Kent Scheidegger · Feb 12, 2020 10:17 am
Mary Stringini reports for Fox 11 in L.A.:
Dr. Drew Pinsky is calling on lawmakers to modify Prop 47, which he says is enabling individuals with mental health issues to deny treatment.
“The fact is — (Prop) 47 is murder. It is murder,” Dr. Drew told FOX 11 during a Good Day LA interview Monday morning. Continue reading . . .
by Kent Scheidegger · Jan 28, 2020 11:25 am
For purposes of sentencing and immigration, federal courts must often categorize prior convictions from state courts to see if they qualify as “aggravated felonies” or “violent felonies.” The “categorical approach” is the method established by the Supreme Court that looks only at the elements of the crime under state law, not what the perpetrator actually did. It asks if it is possible to commit that crime in a way not included in the “generic” definition of the crime.
Concurring in an immigration case, USCA9 Judge Susan Graber “write[s] separately to add my voice to the substantial chorus of federal judges pleading for the Supreme Court or Congress to rescue us from the morass of the categorical approach. [Citations.] The categorical approach requires us to perform absurd legal gymnastics, and it produces absurd results.”
Continue reading . . .
SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED