« Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzmán found guilty on all 10 federal counts now facing LWOP sentence ... but surely could still provide substantial assistance | Main | "The case for capping all prison sentences at 20 years" »

February 12, 2019

Student SCOTUS preview part two: noticing the parole push in United States v. Haymond

6a00d83451574769e2022ad3c272a1200b-320wiI noted here back in 2017 an interesting opinion in US v. Haymond where a Tenth Circuit panel declared unconstitutional the procedures used for revocation of a sex offender's supervised release.  The Supreme Court also obviously found the case interesting because, as reported here, the Justices in 2018 accepted the petition for certiorari filed by the federal government.  Oral argument is scheduled for two weeks from now, and a SCOTUSblog page on Haymond has links to all the briefing.

As reported in this prior post, I have a great student, Jim McGibbon, who is now in the midst of drafting a series of preview posts on the \Haymond case.  Following up on this introductory post, here is his second post inspired by the briefing in the case:

In 2010, Andre Haymond was convicted of possessing child pornography and sentenced to thirty-eight months of prison and ten years of supervised release.  In 2015, two years into his supervised release, Haymond's probation officers conducted a surprise search of his apartment and seized a password-protected cellphone.  Finding images of child pornography on the phone, the probation officers alleged Haymond violated his terms of supervised release.  The district court found by a preponderance of the evidence that Haymond had violated 18 U.S.C. § 2252 by possessing child pornography.  Based on this finding, the court revoked Haymond's supervised release and sentenced him to a mandatory five years in prison pursuant to § 3583(k) and an additional five years of supervised release.  On appeal, the Tenth Circuit held that § 3583(k) was unconstitutional in part because it unlawfully imposes heightened punishment using a preponderance of the evidence standard based on new conduct which contradicts the requirements of Apprendi and Alleyne.  And though parole was abolished in the federal system 35 years ago, its history and procedures lurk as this case now comes before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court in Morrissey v. Brewer stated that "revocation of parole is not part of a criminal prosecution and thus the full panoply of rights due a defendant in such a proceeding does not apply to parole revocation." Morrisey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 480 (1972).  Commenting on the nature of revocation, the Supreme Court theorized that "[r]evocation deprives an individual, not of the absolute liberty to which every citizen is entitled, but only of the conditional liberty properly dependent on observance of special parole restrictions.” Id.  Regarding the right to due process, the Court held that "[w]hether any procedural protections are due depends on the extent to which an individual will be 'condemned to suffer grievous loss.'" Id. at 481.

Morrissey is still good law, as is Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973), which ruled similarly with respect to constitutionally required procedures for revoking probation.  Predictably then, the government briefing in US v. Haymond relies heavily on these cases, as Morrissey is mentioned 21 times and Gagnon is mentioned 14 times in its main brief. Concomitantly, the government’s brief cites to "parole" a whopping 60 times in hopes that the current Court finds that a person on supervised release is afforded only the same procedural protections as a parolee or a probationer as the Burger Court found in Morrissey and Gagnon.  As the government would have it, Morrissey and Gagnon control because Andre Haymond while on supervised release has "only "conditional liberty" and "individuals in respondent’s position are differently situated from those who can claim the full extent of the constitutional protections against a deprivation of their absolute liberty."  Brief of US at 38.  In contrast, Haymond's brief contains only five references to Morrissey.  He argues, unsurprisingly, Morrissey does not apply. 

There are reasons to believe the Court will not automatically find that the procedural protections due a person on supervised release are in lock step with the procedural protection due a person on parole.  Morrissey can be distinguished due to differences between the realities of traditional parole release and parole revocation and the realities of federal supervised release and its revocation.  As Haymond's brief stresses, in this case Congress through section 3583(k) required a new five-year mandatory prison sentence upon a particular finding as the basis for supervised release revocation.  Traditional parole processes included considerable discretion, and "parole revocation penalties could not exceed reimprisonment for the remainder of the original sentence."  Brief for Respondent at 26.  Moreover, continues Haymond, supervised release is not a form of "conditional liberty” because any “defendant who began a term of supervised release completed his term of imprisonment and there was no pending term that he could resume serving (as in the case of parole) or being serving (as in the case of probation)." Brief for Respondent at 27-28.

This case could be decided on whether the discretionary parole system of the past and the mandatory supervised release system of the present are similar enough to apply Morrissey v. Brewer in Haymond's case.  However, if the Court extends Morrissey v. Brewer to be applicable to the revocation of supervised release, then Haymond was not due "the full panoply of rights" and the application of § 3583(k) is probably constitutional — although the Court could still then find that the § 3583(k)'s distinctive mandatory five-year prison sentence is a "grievous loss" for a defendant that justifies greater procedural protections under the Due Process Clause of Fifth Amendment.  Or, if the Court declines to extend Morrissey v. Brewer to the revocation of supervised release, then perhaps the Court will look to the Sixth Amendment to find that jury trial rights are implicated and applicable under the Apprendi and Blakely and Alleyne line of cases.

This case is of interest not only because of its substantive issues, but also because it will present the first major opportunity for new Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh to weigh in on Apprendi and its progeny.  Justice Gorsuch replaced an Apprendi progenitor in Justice Scalia, while Justice Kavanaugh replaced an Apprendi objector in Justice Kennedy.  The next post will explore what they and other Justices might have to say in this case.

Prior related posts:

February 12, 2019 at 01:48 PM | Permalink

Comments

It's worth mentioning that the SG brief in Haymond repeats the notorious "frightening and high" language from Smith v. Doe. That drew an amicus by 18 law and social science scholars calling him to task for repeating this debunked claim about re-offense rates. It will be interesting to see whether the SG responds to that amicus. He may not, especially as it's not clear why he repeated this erroneous factual claim anyway, as it seems irrelevant to the issue in the case. But a similar amicus brief by essentially the same group of scholars was relied upon by the Michigan AG in her remarkable Michigan supreme court filings last week, noted in this blog, concluding that the Michigan registry was punishment imposed ex post facto. (That earlier scholars' amicus was filed in support of an ultimately rejected cert petition in Vasquez; it's a bit surprising that the Michigan AG even came across it.)

Posted by: Ira Ellman | Feb 15, 2019 2:41:12 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