« After Rahimi(?): mapping out the next big Second Amendment cases | Main | Quite the SCOTUS Term shaping up for those intrigued by drugs on the docket »
November 21, 2023
Thanksgiving week filled with clemency headlines ... so far involving only turkeys
I used to blog a lot advocating for greater use of executive clemency powers, especially during the holiday season. But, perhaps unsurprisingly, lame-duck times rather than turkey times still tend to be when governors and presidents finally dust off their clemency pens. But, since my feed was filled today with news of Prez Biden's courageous "fowl" clemency efforts, I figure it worthwhile to do a brief round-up of recent clemency headlines:
From Arkansas, "Sarah Huckabee Sanders Pardons Turkey But Denies Clemency for Wrongly Imprisoned Man"
From Michigan, "Dolly Pardon announced as winning name of turkey receiving executive clemency for Thanksgiving"
From Missouri, "Governor issues clemency for turkeys from Manson: Birds raised by teen get traditional pardon"
From the White House, "‘Congratulations, birds’: Biden jokes fall flat as he pardons Thanksgiving turkeys"
From interested observers, "Turkeys Pardoned While 18,000 Wait"
November 21, 2023 at 12:37 PM | Permalink
Comments
Doug, here you and I see eye to eye. There should be more clemencies and pardons.
Posted by: federalist | Nov 21, 2023 2:58:06 PM
The pardoning of Liberty and Bell is an ironic and seemingly cruel gesture by President Biden. The Office of the Pardon Attorney has more petitions waiting for action then any time in history.
There are now 14,039 petitions for commutation and 3,557 petitions for pardon. During the Biden administration we have seen the BOP population increase annually.
Last, but probably most significantly the budget for the Office of the Pardon Attorney has increased from 5 million in 2021 to 22.5 million in 2023. What is the point of this expenditure if there is no action?
Posted by: beth curtis | Nov 21, 2023 5:06:22 PM
Beth --
The point is to give Biden campaign staffers a government salary. No work required.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Nov 21, 2023 7:51:24 PM
Bill--on the nose, as usual. Happy Thanksgiving!!
Posted by: federalist | Nov 22, 2023 10:24:02 AM
On Marvin Guy:
https://reason.com/2023/11/21/marvin-guy-who-shot-a-cop-during-a-no-knock-raid-is-found-guilty-of-murder/
The "ambush" thing seems crazy.
Posted by: federalist | Nov 22, 2023 10:27:53 AM
Are you saying this is a wrongful conviction in your view, federalist?
Posted by: Doug B | Nov 22, 2023 11:58:45 AM
Perhaps some of the increase in the budget is being used to hold events and travel to prisons to show the administrations commitment to sentencing and criminal justice reform.
Posted by: beth curtis | Nov 22, 2023 12:00:42 PM
Doug, I don't know for sure, but there is the practical reality that Guy didn't testify, which makes matters really tricky. But on the other hand, what evidence rebuts SD?
Posted by: federalist | Nov 22, 2023 12:51:46 PM
Pretty sure we went through this, federalist: my understanding is that multiple witnesses (including multiple police officers) testified to yelling some version of “Police, search warrant” as they entered. If believed, that would seem to be sufficient evidence to undermine elements of a SD claim. And if Guy did not present evidence to support his SD claim --- which requires in Texas a showing that "the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force" --- I am not sure how to call this a wrongful conviction. But, of course, I did not hear any of the testimony and have not followed the case at all.
At least Guy is not now facing the death penalty, unlike Phillip Dean Hancock in Oklahoma who might still get executed despite having a plausible SD claim.
Posted by: Doug B | Nov 22, 2023 1:16:10 PM
Of course, the cops are going to say they said it, and it's not clear that he had conscious awareness of that anyway given the time of day. And just because someone says that they are cops doesn't mean that they are. That's the problem--if this guy didn't know, this is an appalling injustice.
Posted by: federalist | Nov 22, 2023 2:48:49 PM
Are you accusing the cops of "testilying" here, federalist? I recall you were quite upset by a NYT op-ed along those lines some time ago. More to the point, if the defendant does not take the stand to provide another narrative, why should a jury have doubt about any of what the men in blue say under oath? If a guy who shoots at cops did not know they were cops, shouldn't he get on the stand and say that?
To the extent you see this case as potentially an "appalling injustice," are you also prepared to note how it is directly connected to the modern drug war? Was Guy's dealing of cocaine --- practices at the time being lionized in the Academy Award winning "Wolf of Wall Street" --- such a threat to public safety that it called for this kind of police intervention? The loss of lives seems so wasteful and pointless, and yet all too common. Indeed, what makes the Guy case special, as I see it, is that some folks even bothered to notice the all-too-common collateral damage.
Posted by: Doug B | Nov 22, 2023 3:23:29 PM
Like most things in this administration when it comes to criminal justice policy, this office is pure window dressing.
Posted by: AFPD | Nov 23, 2023 12:29:16 AM
Federalist--
And a happy Thanksgiving to you!
Posted by: Bill Otis | Nov 23, 2023 1:02:34 PM
AFPD. --
I might take issue with "pure," but you're definitely on to something
Posted by: Bill Otis | Nov 23, 2023 1:05:35 PM
Doug, I am not accusing the cops of anything--I am just saying that after 9 years etc., that the testimony should be discounted. This warrant seems like BS to me. But hey, remember all the Dems supporting the raid in Waco? All those dead kids.
"Shouldn't he get on the stand and say that?" Seriously? Are you a law prof?
Posted by: federalist | Nov 27, 2023 9:52:57 AM
federalist, one does not need to be a law professor to expect and predict that jurors will respond to the evidence put before them (and not put before them). The Michelle Alexander piece that you railed against --- and yet now seem to be echoing --- made the point that jurors are always likely to credit the testimony of cops over the claims of defendants. And here the jurors did not even hear from the defendant because he was unwilling to go before the jury and tell his story under oath. He has no obligation to do so, but it is not at all surprising that jurors did not credit a story that they did not actually hear from the person supposedly telling it.
In the end, federalist, it seems like you agree with much of what Alexander had to say (at least in this case) when you complain about the drug warrant and police tactics: eg, "the police shouldn’t be trusted any more than any other witness, perhaps less so." But I am still unsure if you now consider the Guy case an example of a wrongful conviction, an example of our drug war run amok, an example of how capital punishment and/or mandatory LWOP can be part of an "appalling injustice" or any of a number of talking points often stressed by various CJ reform advocates. I suspect, notably, that few CJ reform advocates will champion this case because the victims were cops (serving, in this way, to echo again Alexander's points).
Posted by: Doug B | Nov 27, 2023 11:12:57 AM
I've read pretty much every report I can about the Guy trial. Some problems:
(1) This "ambush" story--what a crock--he was supposed to divine that cops were coming?
(2) Where is the evidence that he knew that these guys were cops (and not criminals entering his home)?
(3) The widow testimony???
(4) No evidence of drugs.
I just don't think there's enough evidence here from which a rational factfinder could determine BRD that he wasn't acting in SD. With respect to Rittenhouse, there's the video of what happened. SO that was CLEARLY an abuse of power.
I don't like it when any innocent person is put behind bars, and I too think that no-knock warrants have their, very very very limited, place.
Posted by: federalist | Nov 27, 2023 1:06:31 PM
