by Kent Scheidegger · Apr 20, 2026 7:22 am
The U.S. Supreme Court issued its Monday orders list this morning with the results from last week’s conference. The high court sent one law enforcement civil case back to the court of appeals and took up one criminal case on sentencing guidelines.
The court also summarily reversed a D.C. Circuit opinion in a Fourth Amendment case regarding the suspiciousness of people fleeing at the sight of police.
by Kent Scheidegger · Feb 22, 2026 6:58 pm
The Los Angeles Times has this story by Clara Harter:
A Sacramento man once described by a judge as “the monster parents fear the most” seemed destined to spend the rest of his life in prison after he was convicted of 16 counts of kidnapping and child molestation in 1999.
Instead, he is now set to go free after being granted elderly parole — much to the anger and horror of some of his victims, as well as the prosecutor who oversaw his case.
“He shouldn’t be breathing the same air that we’re breathing at all,” one victim, who was kidnapped and assaulted when she was just 4 years old, told The Times in an interview. “I disagree with him getting paroled out because he’s a horrible person. That man is a monster.” Continue reading . . .
by Kent Scheidegger · Jan 14, 2026 8:54 am
The U.S. Supreme Court decided two criminal cases today. In Barrett v. United States, the court decided that if a single act violates two provisions of a notoriously complex federal firearms statute the defendant can only be punished for one of them. In Case v. Montana the court confirmed that entry into a home for the purpose of emergency assistance requires only “an “objectively reasonable basis for believing that someone inside needs emergency assistance.” Probable cause is not required. “The probable-cause requirement is rooted in, and derives its meaning from, the criminal context, and we decline to transplant it to this different one.”
Both decisions are unanimous, although Justice Gorsuch declines to join one subpart of the Barrett opinion.
by Kent Scheidegger · Nov 3, 2025 11:32 am
The U.S. Supreme Court’s November argument calendar begins today. It is Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday this week and next except for Veterans’ Day, next Tuesday.
Here are the criminal and law-enforcement-related civil cases on the docket:
Today, Nov. 3: Rico v. United States. Whether the fugitive-tolling doctrine applies in the context of supervised release.
Next Monday, Nov. 10: Landor v. La. Dept. Corrections: Whether an individual may sue a government official in his individual capacity for damages for violations of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000.
Next Wednesday, Nov. 12: Fernandez v. United States: Whether a combination of “extraordinary and compelling reasons” that may warrant a discretionary sentence reduction under 18 U. S. C. §3582(c)(1)(a) can include reasons that may also be alleged as grounds for vacatur of a sentence under 28 U. S. C. §2255.
Next Wednesday, Nov. 12: Rutherford v. United States and Carter v. United States: Nonretroactive changes in sentencing law as grounds for sentence reduction. Continue reading . . .
by Kent Scheidegger · Jun 21, 2025 8:08 pm
Ana Kasparian has this post with the above title at Real Clear Investigations.
by Kent Scheidegger · May 27, 2025 9:10 am
Federal law, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c), provides a limited authority for a federal judge to modify a previously imposed term of imprisonment. One of the grounds, in subparagraph (1)(A), is that “extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction.” Today the U.S. Supreme Court took up the case of Fernandez v. United States, No. 24-556, to decide if reasons that would support a motion to vacate a sentence constitute grounds for a 3582(c)(1)(A) modification. The motion-to-vacate statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2255, is Congress’s substitute for habeas corpus for federal prisoners.
by Kent Scheidegger · May 23, 2025 10:08 am
The California Legislature is considering moving up parole hearings and releases for murderers and rapists. The proponents of this change may be having some difficulty rounding up the votes, and they have employed a legislative trick to buy more time. People with sense need to use this time to tell their representatives to vote down this atrocity instead.
In California, sentences of X-to-life (as opposed to a set term of years) are generally reserved for the very worst criminals. Murderers make up the lion’s share of inmates with these “indeterminate sentences.” Most second-degree murders draw a sentence of 15-to-life, and first-degree murder without special circumstances draws 25-to-life. Some repeated or exceptionally heinous sex crimes also draw similar sentences. The Three Strikes Law — which was substantially narrowed in an initiative in 2012 — also provides an indeterminate sentence for the third conviction of felonies from lists designated “serious” or “violent,” but these lists are considerably narrower than their names imply. Assault with a deadly weapon is not on the “violent” list, for example.
Before 2016, all of the minimums above were real minimums. Credits for good behavior or program participation could shorten fixed-year sentences, but they did not move up the minimum eligible parole dates (MEPD) for the X-to-life sentences, with a few minor exceptions. Proposition 57 passed in that year. The state prison department, called the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), subsequently claimed that Prop. 57 authorized it to move up MEPDs via credits, untroubled by the fact that the initiative does not contain a single word about MEPDs.
CJLF and three crime victims filed suit over this and other issues with CDCR’s credit regulations. The Sacramento Superior Court agreed with us regarding MEPDs and issued a writ of mandate to cease early parole hearings and early releases. CDCR appealed, and the writ was stayed pending appeal as to the early hearings but remains in effect as to early releases. Oral argument in CJLF v. CDCR, No. C100274, was heard in the Third District Court of Appeal last Tuesday, May 20.
Assembly Member Ash Kalra is wringing his hands over the murderers and rapists being deprived of their early releases. If he cares anything at all about the victims and their families, he hasn’t shown it. So he took an unrelated bill about prison visitation, amended out all its text, and substituted language that would authorize CDCR to move up MEPDs this way. Continue reading . . .
by Kent Scheidegger · Mar 21, 2025 12:02 pm
Last year, when the U.S. Supreme Court took up the case of Delligatti v. United States, I noted in this post the absurdity of the question. Today, the Court decided the case. Yes, murder is a “crime of violence” for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).
Justice Thomas wrote the opinion for the Court, joined by six other Justices. So who are the other two? Continue reading . . .
by Kent Scheidegger · Mar 4, 2025 1:54 pm
Simon Fraser University in British Columbia has this press release announcing this study in the Journal of Criminal Justice regarding the effect of sentence length on recividism. Overall, studies on this issue have mixed results and generally show little effect either way, as Elizabeth Berger and I describe in this article, which is cited in the new article.
Here is the abstract: Continue reading . . .
by Kent Scheidegger · Oct 18, 2024 11:58 am
The folks in favor of so-called criminal justice “reform” are fond of simplistic slogans such as “treatment, not jail” for drug offenders. However, as this story by Julie Watts at Sacramento’s CBS 13 indicates, “reform” measures can sometimes undermine treatment rather than promote it. This is one more example of a primary cause of bad policy — failure to consider the indirect consequences and considering only the direct consequences.
Once upon a time, drug courts were a key element of criminal justice reform. These specialized courts provide an alternative to people arrested for drug crimes, either possession or low-level dealing. If they agree to treatment and follow through to completion of the program, the criminal charges will be dropped. As described in the story, many people credit these programs with savings their lives.
But what happens when the criminal penalties for low-level drug offenses are lowered so far that the incentive vanishes? Continue reading . . .
SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED