« On eve of federal sentencing, any final predictions (or desires) for Anthony Weiner's punishment for underage sexting? | Main | Official FBI crime data confirms that 2016 saw another notable increase in violent crime and further reductions in property crime »

September 24, 2017

Terrific review of SCOTUS petitions to watch from folks at In Justice Today


I have previously flagged In Justice Today, a publication of Harvard Law School’s Fair Punishment Project, for its copious coverage of a range of criminal justice issues.  Today, I am flagging this extraordinary lengthy In Justice Today accounting of cert petitions to watch as the Supreme Court gets back in action with this "long conference" this week.  Here is the start and just a small part of this very helpful (and link-filled) review of criminal cases that could make their way to the SCOTUS merits docket:

Starting on Monday, the Court has dozens of criminal justice related certiorari petitions to consider. Here are the ten petitions we’re following closely, which cover issues including civil commitment, sex offender registries, non-unanimous jury verdicts, death in prison sentences for juveniles, the death penalty, prosecutorial misconduct, Double Jeopardy protections, and solitary confinement...

Karsjens v. Piper.  On September 25, the U.S. Supreme Court will consider a class challenge to Minnesota's controversial civil commitment regime, the Minnesota Sex Offender Program....

Snyder v. Doe. Over the past decade, Michigan has created one of the most punitive registry schemes in America....  The State of Michigan filed a petition seeking review of the Sixth Circuit’s legal determination that the retroactive application of the sex offender registration laws constituted ex post facto punishment.

Lambert v. Louisiana. In 48 states, juries in criminal cases must return unanimous verdicts. Louisiana and Oregon are the only exceptions; both states permit convictions when only 10 of 12 jurors find the defendant guilty....  Even though the non-unanimity approach only prevails in two jurisdictions, the case arrives at the Court with significant momentum....

Johnson v. Idaho. This term, the Court will have the opportunity to address the question left open in Miller: whether “the Eighth Amendment requires a categorical bar on life without parole for juveniles.” 567 U.S. at 469. In Johnson v. Idaho, the petitioner, Sarah Johnson, challenges the constitutionality of juvenile life-without-parole (JLWOP)....

Ohio v. Moore. In Ohio v. Moore, the State of Ohio is challenging the Ohio Supreme Court’s conclusion that Graham’s prohibition on life-without-parole sentences for juveniles who commit non-homicide offenses also forecloses a term-of-years prison sentence, imposed for multiple non-homicide crimes, that exceeds the juvenile’s life expectancy....

Three other pending petitions — Willbanks v. Missouri Department of Corrections, Garza v. Nebraska, and Castaneda v. Nebraska — present essentially the same question, albeit from the opposite posture. In each, the petitioner challenged the constitutionality of his lengthy aggregate term-of-years sentence, imposed consecutively for several different felony offenses....

Hidalgo v. Arizona. Abel Daniel Hidalgo has asked the Court to consider the constitutionality of Arizona’s death penalty scheme, both in light of its failure to meaningfully narrow the class of murders that are death-eligible and because evolving standards of decency show that, as a categorical matter, the death penalty is unconstitutional....

Farnan v. Walker asks the Court to resolve questions about qualified immunity in the context of prison officials making determinations that a prisoner should be placed in solitary confinement....

September 24, 2017 at 01:05 PM | Permalink


Imagine the avoidance of these Q.s were all suspects summarily executed upon suspicion of an offense !

Posted by: Queen of Hearts | Sep 24, 2017 2:54:50 PM

Hello, Queen. That is precisely what happens in my neighborhood, where the lawyers live. There is virtually no crime, a short distance from high crime areas. Your proposal works well in the real world of the lawyer residential neighborhood.

Question. If is this is in place for the lawyer and his family, why is not good enough for everyone else?

Posted by: David Behar | Sep 24, 2017 3:53:38 PM

I invite people to click on About Us. All the members of this group, including one Prof. Douglas Berman, are pro-criminal and pro-lawyer employment via infinite procedure.

This anti-victim, douche bag group is dismissed. Most are also Harvard Law assholes. If lawyers are the stupidest people in the country, those are the stupidest lawyers. They are book worms, studying books, 80 hours a week, for decades, and know nothing about the real world.

Posted by: David Behar | Sep 24, 2017 4:08:50 PM

They said, Contact Us.

So I wrote,

None of your members represents the interest of crime victims to not be victimized. All your members owe their livings to criminals. You are strongly biased in the favor of defense interests, even the former prosecutors on your list of members. For example, I have no doubt these prosecutors would prosecute a crime victim who hurt a criminal in the course of stopping a crime.

You are missing out on half the story of this debate. You are kidding yourselves.

Then, they made me do lawyer math, asking what 12 + 13 equaled, before being able to submit my comment. Why does lawyer math stop at the fourth grade? That is all the math you need to count money.

Posted by: David Behar | Sep 24, 2017 4:19:11 PM

Behar, I am pro-criminal. I love watching robberies and rapes and murders, especially of babies and old, helpless women, preferably blind. It's very exciting. I also hope you will soon join me in the nut house where you belong and where you can be placed in a straigtjacket very quickly.

Posted by: anon21 | Sep 24, 2017 4:23:17 PM

Anon21. You call me crazy, perhaps after finding a KGB Handbook in the trash.

Yet, you are the one who belongs to a group of 1.5 million people that believes that minds can be read, the future forecast, and that standards of conduct should be based on those of a fictitious character. Why fictitious? So, these standards may be objective, of course.

Cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo. Ding.

Posted by: David Behar | Sep 24, 2017 8:24:48 PM

Anon21. You are pro-criminal. You do not like to see crime, however. Where you live there is probably virtually no crime, with the death penalty at the scene.

What you like is your salary. It comes from protecting, privileging, and empowering the criminal, through what? Procedure. Procedure, naturally, requires the hiring of lawyers. You like making your living off crime, and will not tolerate its elimination.

Posted by: David Behar | Sep 24, 2017 8:27:33 PM

Behar, you hate lawyers because your ex-wife took you to the cleaners. Fess up. Unlike you, she spent a buck and hired an excellent lawyer. You represented yourself, and, what's worse, you forgot to take your pills that day. Two big mistakes. Just sayin'

Posted by: anon21 | Sep 25, 2017 11:00:19 AM

What is sad to me is that there are eight comments in this thread and not a single one addresses any of the cases mentioned in the OP.

Posted by: Daniel | Sep 25, 2017 12:19:34 PM

Anon21. Now you are also psychic.

Posted by: David Behar | Sep 25, 2017 1:05:30 PM

Daniel. Would you bother addressing a case posted in the David Duke web site with seriousness? Duke is far more honest, and less rent seeking than these supercilious, rent seekers. You would, Duke has a biased agenda, is a denier, and cannot be engaged.

Posted by: David Behar | Sep 25, 2017 1:07:18 PM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB