GateHouse Media
August 31, 2019
You can feel it in the air. The lines are drawn, old rivals
prepare for battle, and fans wait in line to get in for opening day. No, it is
not the first Sunday of NFL football — it’s the approaching first day of the
fall term of the United State Supreme Court (SCOTUS).
If you’re a SCOTUS fan, particularly decisions impacting the
criminal justice system, this term is going to be a real treat. The justices
will hear a litany of cases dealing with everything from the insanity defense
to the death penalty.
First, the court will consider the insanity defense. The
insanity defense is not a justification for committing a crime — like
self-defense — it is an excuse for committing a crime. The defendant admits the
crime, but asserts a lack of culpability based on a severe mental illness.
Several years ago, Kansas abolished the insanity defense.
There are only three other states without the insanity defense.
James Kahler was charged with murder in Kansas. His
attorneys argued to the jury that their client wasn’t guilty because he was
unable to appreciate the difference between right and wrong when he committed
murder.
Without a recognized defense for insanity, Kahler was
convicted. His case has made its way to the Supreme Court where it will be
argued this fall.
To get to this point, his lawyers argued that Kansas’
approach “defies a fundamental, centuries-old precept of our legal system:
People cannot be punished for crimes for which they are not morally culpable.”
In a second case out of Kansas, the high court will decide
whether, for purposes of an investigative stop by police under the Fourth
Amendment, it is reasonable for an officer to suspect that the registered owner
of a vehicle is the one driving the vehicle absent any information to the
contrary.
Next, the death penalty. James McKinney was sentenced to
death by a judge in Arizona. Following years of appeals, a federal appeals
court ruled that the Arizona courts erred by not considering mitigating evidence
during his sentencing, and ordered the state to reconsider the sentence.
Since McKinney’s first sentencing, the law changed requiring
a jury, not a judge, to impose a death sentence. However, the Arizona court
said because the law was different when he was first sentenced, McKinney should
again be sentenced by only a judge.
McKinney is asking the Supreme Court to affirm his
constitutional right to be sentenced by a jury. The court’s decision will
impact a number of states since there is disagreement among the various state
courts on this issue.
There is another case that has generated some interest--not
only because of who is involved--but because of the potential impact on
juvenile life sentences. Lee Boyd Malvo rose to infamy in 2002 when he and John
Allen Mohammad went on a 21-day sniper spree that killed 10 motorists in the
Washington, D.C., area.
Malvo was 17 when he committed the offenses, which led to a
sentence of life without parole. After he was sentenced, the Supreme Court
decided Miller v. Alabama. The court ruled in Miller that the Eighth Amendment
prohibits sentencing a juvenile to a mandatory sentence of life without parole.
Virginia, where Malvo was sentenced, has argued that Malvo’s
sentence of life without parole was not mandatory because Virginia law permits
judges to suspend a life sentence. The Supreme Court must decide whether Miller
applies to a sentencing scheme like Virginia’s that doesn’t “officially” impose
a mandatory life without parole sentence.
Finally, in a case out of Louisiana, the Court will decide
if the Constitution requires unanimous jury verdicts in all state criminal
trials, as occurs in 49 out of 50 states?
Although Louisiana revised its state constitution to require
unanimous verdicts—Oregon is now the only state that allows non-unanimous
verdicts in criminal cases—the change came after Evangelisto Ramos was
convicted of murder by only 10 of 12 jurors. Ramos wants the benefit of the new
law.
SCOTUS, like the NFL, has a busy schedule this fall, but
don’t look for any SCOTUS outcomes until after the Super Bowl.
Matthew T. Mangino is of counsel with Luxenberg, Garbett,
Kelly & George P.C. His book The Executioner’s Toll, 2010 was released by
McFarland Publishing. You can reach him at www.mattmangino.com and follow him
on Twitter @MatthewTMangino.
To visit the column CLICK HERE
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment