« 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
Comments
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
Sarah Marie Johnson didn't do it,the fingerprints on the murder weapon belong to a guy by the name of Christopher Kevin Hill,who does not have an alibi for the day that Sarah Marie Johnson's parents were murdered,and Christopher Kevin Hill admitted to touching the murder weapon,and that will indicate that Christopher Kevin Hill was the killer.
Christopher Kevin Hill wanted to buy their house,but the parents told him that he can only have the guesthouse that was outside their house,and he was very angry after he got into a heated argued with the parents over the house.
On the morning of September 2,2003,he took the rifle that Mel Speegle owned,and then he entered the Johnson Family home,either by using a lockpick,or a special key to unlock the front door,or because the Johnson family either forgot to lock the front door,or left the front door unlocked by accident,and then he shot Diane Marie Johnson who was asleep in bed,and then he shot Alan Scott Johnson,who was coming out of the shower.
Sarah Marie Johnson was awakened by the first shot,and after the second shot was fired,Christopher Kevin Hill was hiding inside her parents' bedroom closet while she took a look inside her parents' bedroom,and when she saw that her parents were shot to death,it made her run out of the house,and over to the neighbors' house in a panic.
What Sarah Marie Johnson might not have known is that when Christopher Kevin Hill came out of the closet,and saw that the coast was clear,he saw some blood on the floor next to where her mother was sleeping,and he was looking for something that he could use to clean it up,so he used that robe to clean it up and that is how Sarah Marie Johnson was framed for the murders of her parents,and she also might not have known that he placed those 3 knives onto the floor,and she also might not have known that he tried to hide the murder weapon from police,and she also might not have known that he tried to throw out both the robe,and the separate gloves.
On the day that Sarah Marie Johnson's parents were murdered,she did not wear that robe,and she did not wear those gloves,and if anyone said that she was wearing them on that day,then they lied.
The motive was that Christopher Kevin Hill wanted to buy their house,but they refused to let him buy the house,and because of that,he decided to shoot the parents to death,so he could have the house all to himself.
Just because the parents refused to let him buy the house,doesn't mean that he can shoot them to death.
Sarah Marie Johnson never got into any arguments with her parents,she was always very nice to them,and she always got along with them very well.
Her parents never got into any arguments with her,they were always very nice to her,and they always got along with her very well.
Sarah Marie Johnson is a very nice lady,and she always loved her parents,and she has always been grieving the loss of her parents,especially when she attended their funerals,and she cared a lot for her parents,and she is so nice that she wouldn't even hurt a fly.
Sarah Marie Johnson would have to be crazy to do such a thing.
She wasn't even willing to kill her parents.
She had nothing to do with the murders of her parents.
She never wanted her parents to die,she wanted them to live,and she also felt that they died too soon,and she did not hire anyone to kill them,and she was very upset when they told her that her parents were dead,and when they asked her if she put that robe,and those seperate gloves into the trash can,she said that she did not put them into the trash can.
Sarah Marie Johnson has always believed in god.
Sarah Marie Johnson never made any confession to anyone,and she didn't even come close to making a confession.
Sarah Marie Johnson never said anything to Melinda Gonzales,and when Melinda Gonzales took the stand at Sarah Marie Johnson's trial,she lied to everyone including the judge and the jury.
When Sarah Marie Johnson was arrested on October 29,2003 at the age of 16 years old,noone read those Miranda Rights to her,not even the arresting sheriff,whose name is Walt Femling,and that is a violation that was committed when the arrest was made,and that is why the arrest should have been thrown out.
Because someone else's fingerprints were found on the murder weapon,and not her fingerprints,that needs to be an indication that she was convicted on tainted evidence,and also that she never even touched the murder weapon,and also that she was wrongfully convicted of the murders of her parents,and if anyone ever said that she touched the murder weapon,then they lied.
Christopher Kevin Hill is the one that should be prosecuted for the murders of Alan Scott Johnson,and Diane Marie Johnson.
I am still waiting for Christopher Kevin Hill to confess to the double murder,after he found out that his fingerprints were on the murder weapon,and to explain how he was able to open the front door without breaking it,and without setting off the alarm,and the reason why he wanted to buy their house,and to tell us if he either acted alone,or used Mel Speegle as an accomplice,and to confess to framing Sarah Marie Johnson for the murders of her parents,and because his fingerprints were found on the murder weapon,and Sarah Marie Johnson's fingerprints were not found on the murder weapon,it should be enough to convict Christopher Kevin Hill of both murders,and clear Sarah Marie Johnson of both murders.
Posted by: Jack Johnson | Jan 13, 2018 3:13:05 PM
