In more amusing news, one of the cases SCOTUS declined to hear was Mann v National Review, in which Mann sued NR for defamation when they claimed he'd committed academic fraud in his support of climate science.
Womp womp.
Did the lower court rule in favor of NR?
I believe the decision is just to let that lower court case to proceed.
In more amusing news, one of the cases SCOTUS declined to hear was Mann v National Review, in which Mann sued NR for defamation when they claimed he'd committed academic fraud in his support of climate science.
Womp womp.
Did the lower court rule in favor of NR?
I believe the decision is just to let that lower court case to proceed.
In more amusing news, one of the cases SCOTUS declined to hear was Mann v National Review, in which Mann sued NR for defamation when they claimed he'd committed academic fraud in his support of climate science.
Womp womp.
Did the lower court rule in favor of NR?
I believe the decision is just to let that lower court case to proceed.
Isn't that normal, then?
I'm guessing that the Scotus appeal was based on some sort of pre-trial motion (which, based on ElJeffe's reaction to the news, I'm assuming was by the NR) that they though should have been granted, only for SCOTUS to basically go "nope, lower court got it right/not the time for us to decide on it, now go fight your case there."
I haven't been following the case too closely, but my understanding is lower courts keep ruling against NR, and they keep appealing. The decision by SCOTUS to not hear the case means it's getting kicked down to a DC court that NR describes as "very liberal".
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
From what I read on SCOTUSBlog NR was trying to use an anti-SLAAP suit law to quash the whole lawsuit. The suit started because they did stupid shit like compare Mann with Sandusky. Stupid long shit did not pan out for NR basically.
+2
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
SCOTUS also denied cert to Adnan Syed (the subject of Serial season 1). It’s unfortunate not just for Adnan, but because this keeps in place a lower court ruling that establishes a legal precedent that attorneys are not required to contact potential alibi witnesses. That is a big problem for lots of other cases, including false convictions, because it opens the door for the state to potentially successfully argue that your lawyer was not ineffective when they failed to contact your alibi. Often these procedural grounds are the only way for defendants to proceed through the system—“I’m innocent because we found an alibi witness, and therefore my case deserves new consideration” is a lot harder, and sometimes impossible, to pursue through the courts, whereas “My lawyer was bad because they failed to contact this alibi witness, and therefore my case deserves new consideration” isn’t closed off in the same way—or at least, it wasn’t. The lower court ruling has already been cited in other cases and I expect SCOTUS’ refusal to even look at the issue may do lasting harm to the post-conviction relief process.
SCOTUS also denied cert to Adnan Syed (the subject of Serial season 1). It’s unfortunate not just for Adnan, but because this keeps in place a lower court ruling that establishes a legal precedent that attorneys are not required to contact potential alibi witnesses. That is a big problem for lots of other cases, including false convictions, because it opens the door for the state to potentially successfully argue that your lawyer was not ineffective when they failed to contact your alibi. Often these procedural grounds are the only way for defendants to proceed through the system—“I’m innocent because we found an alibi witness, and therefore my case deserves new consideration” is a lot harder, and sometimes impossible, to pursue through the courts, whereas “My lawyer was bad because they failed to contact this alibi witness, and therefore my case deserves new consideration” isn’t closed off in the same way—or at least, it wasn’t. The lower court ruling has already been cited in other cases and I expect SCOTUS’ refusal to even look at the issue may do lasting harm to the post-conviction relief process.
This has been a long running issue with the SCOTUS in general, tending to fall on the side of the prosecution.
SCOTUS also denied cert to Adnan Syed (the subject of Serial season 1). It’s unfortunate not just for Adnan, but because this keeps in place a lower court ruling that establishes a legal precedent that attorneys are not required to contact potential alibi witnesses. That is a big problem for lots of other cases, including false convictions, because it opens the door for the state to potentially successfully argue that your lawyer was not ineffective when they failed to contact your alibi. Often these procedural grounds are the only way for defendants to proceed through the system—“I’m innocent because we found an alibi witness, and therefore my case deserves new consideration” is a lot harder, and sometimes impossible, to pursue through the courts, whereas “My lawyer was bad because they failed to contact this alibi witness, and therefore my case deserves new consideration” isn’t closed off in the same way—or at least, it wasn’t. The lower court ruling has already been cited in other cases and I expect SCOTUS’ refusal to even look at the issue may do lasting harm to the post-conviction relief process.
This has been a long running issue with the SCOTUS in general, tending to fall on the side of the prosecution.
Not surprising given basically all the recent scotus have been prosecutors. Defense attorneys are almost never selected because the shit show of confirmation would become even shittier to try to nominate somebody who defended "bad people".
Steven Mazie covers the Supreme Court for The Economist: NEW at SCOTUS: the justices REFUSE to expedite review of the 5th-circuit ruling against Obamacare, pushing that explosive question off at least until the election has passed.
+23
Options
silence1186Character shields down!As a wingmanRegistered Userregular
5-4 ruling today on party lines that Trump admin can deny green cards to those they expect to be public charges ever, while appeals are sorted out.
This is a fucking weird ruling. Because they are apparently not ruling on the immigration question at hand (which is still being appealed to the 2nd circuit), but just on the ability of judges to issue injunctions outside of their jurisdiction.
The Northern District of California ordered the government not to enforce the new rule within a hodge-podge of jurisdictions—California, Oregon, Maine, Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia. The Eastern District of Washington entered a similar order, but went much farther geographically, enjoining the government from enforcing its rule globally. But both of those orders were soon stayed by the Ninth Circuit which, in a 59-page opinion, determined the government was likely to succeed on the merits. Meanwhile, across the country, the District of Maryland entered its own universal injunction, only to have that one stayed by the Fourth Circuit. And while all these developments were unfolding on the coasts, the Northern District of Illinois was busy fashioning its own injunction, this one limited to enforcement within the State of Illinois. If all of this is confusing, don’t worry, because none of it matters much at this point. Despite the fluid state of things—some interim wins for the government over here, some preliminary relief for plaintiffs over there—we now have an injunction to rule the all: the one before us, in which a single judge in New York enjoined the government from applying the new definition to anyone, without regard to geography or participation in this or any other lawsuit.
So looking at all of the confusing shit that happened before the universal injunction, the supreme court comes to the decision that the confusing shit is much preferable to the single injunction before them, because only the supreme court has jurisdiction over the whole US. everyone else must stick to their rightful place.
Jebus314 on
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
Gorsuch, yeah. Threw in a LOTR reference to seem cool.
The purpose of this ruling is to secure complete power in the court conservatives control absolutely, the supreme court. If the lower courts cannot issue injunctions, then the government has the ability to either...
1) Implement whatever it wants while slow rolling the decision to the court
2) Make the lower courts irrelevant, because they cannot meaningfully change any aspect of law.
It effectively means that regardless of the workload of the court, the government and the supreme court can partner together to do anything they want, whereas previously it might have been impossible to both SEEM as if you were fairly hearing cases in the SC while also being able to implement as much obviously illegal crap as you want. Now the SC can let lower court rulings sit for years if they don't want to make unpopular calls, but also don't want to seem to rush individual cases.
Yeah, the judicial thing for the last few years has been the courts (usually the 9th circuit, because) telling the Trump admin, "No, you can't actually do that you racist fucks". This is them trying to put an end to that.
(I fear they may succeed.)
Gorsuch, yeah. Threw in a LOTR reference to seem cool.
The purpose of this ruling is to secure complete power in the court conservatives control absolutely, the supreme court. If the lower courts cannot issue injunctions, then the government has the ability to either...
1) Implement whatever it wants while slow rolling the decision to the court
2) Make the lower courts irrelevant, because they cannot meaningfully change any aspect of law.
It effectively means that regardless of the workload of the court, the government and the supreme court can partner together to do anything they want, whereas previously it might have been impossible to both SEEM as if you were fairly hearing cases in the SC while also being able to implement as much obviously illegal crap as you want. Now the SC can let lower court rulings sit for years if they don't want to make unpopular calls, but also don't want to seem to rush individual cases.
That's only the concurrence, only two of the conservatives were willing to be that open about it.
Though it occurs to me. One principle of the courts is that they can't hear disputes for which they can't provide a remedy. Does that mean such a ruling would just throw all such cases under SCOTUS as original jurisdiction (in which they can't refuse to hear it)?
Gorsuch, yeah. Threw in a LOTR reference to seem cool.
The purpose of this ruling is to secure complete power in the court conservatives control absolutely, the supreme court. If the lower courts cannot issue injunctions, then the government has the ability to either...
1) Implement whatever it wants while slow rolling the decision to the court
2) Make the lower courts irrelevant, because they cannot meaningfully change any aspect of law.
It effectively means that regardless of the workload of the court, the government and the supreme court can partner together to do anything they want, whereas previously it might have been impossible to both SEEM as if you were fairly hearing cases in the SC while also being able to implement as much obviously illegal crap as you want. Now the SC can let lower court rulings sit for years if they don't want to make unpopular calls, but also don't want to seem to rush individual cases.
That's only the concurrence, only two of the conservatives were willing to be that open about it.
Though it occurs to me. One principle of the courts is that they can't hear disputes for which they can't provide a remedy. Does that mean such a ruling would just throw all such cases under SCOTUS as original jurisdiction (in which they can't refuse to hear it)?
From my understanding, it would still require either a "Minister or Consul" to be involved, or US state itself to file suit (as it then would be a Party in the suit) I'm sure there are few state legislatures/AGs on both sides that would be absolutely fine with doing that.
The other possibility is that we get patchwork rulings where the US is prevented from doing X in Y district but not Z district, which would get hella confusing for things like green card applications, where different standards would apply solely based on which federal district you live in.
I feel like shennangians involving one or the other are going to start happening that are going to make things a massive headache for SCOTUS until they or Congress (because Congress has the power to set what jurisdiction inferior courts have, they could pass a law that states federal appeals districts do have this power) act on fixing it.
In a predictable result, they include two 5-4 decisions in which the usual suspects have never met a cop they want to hold accountable or a sentence that deserves review.
In a predictable result, they include two 5-4 decisions in which the usual suspects have never met a cop they want to hold accountable or a sentence that deserves review.
I heard about one of them (Hernandez vs Mesa), which is frankly sickening, and just proves that law enforcement are unaccountable. "You want extrajudicial killings of children on the other side of the border? Thas cool." - This SCOTUS, apparently.
I'm not normally one to rail against law enforcement on principle, but fucking hell, they need to be held accountable when they fuck up. This qualified immunity shit applying to every fucking circumstance now (I believe JOliver had a segment on how it's cyclical, that because a cop hasn't breached qualified immunity, there's no standard by which qualified immunity can be breached), needs to be fucking done with.
In a predictable result, they include two 5-4 decisions in which the usual suspects have never met a cop they want to hold accountable or a sentence that deserves review.
I heard about one of them (Hernandez vs Mesa), which is frankly sickening, and just proves that law enforcement are unaccountable. "You want extrajudicial killings of children on the other side of the border? Thas cool." - This SCOTUS, apparently.
I'm not normally one to rail against law enforcement on principle, but fucking hell, they need to be held accountable when they fuck up. This qualified immunity shit applying to every fucking circumstance now (I believe JOliver had a segment on how it's cyclical, that because a cop hasn't breached qualified immunity, there's no standard by which qualified immunity can be breached), needs to be fucking done with.
In a predictable result, they include two 5-4 decisions in which the usual suspects have never met a cop they want to hold accountable or a sentence that deserves review.
I heard about one of them (Hernandez vs Mesa), which is frankly sickening, and just proves that law enforcement are unaccountable. "You want extrajudicial killings of children on the other side of the border? Thas cool." - This SCOTUS, apparently.
I'm not normally one to rail against law enforcement on principle, but fucking hell, they need to be held accountable when they fuck up. This qualified immunity shit applying to every fucking circumstance now (I believe JOliver had a segment on how it's cyclical, that because a cop hasn't breached qualified immunity, there's no standard by which qualified immunity can be breached), needs to be fucking done with.
But what was the other one? You mentioned two.
First step would probably be pressuring your state government to revoke that qualified immunity. And also ban patrol officers from carrying firearms. Conservatives and police unions would raise hell about it and anyone who'd vote for it would be painted as being weak on crime, so it's unlikely to get anywhere, but that's how you solve it.
In a predictable result, they include two 5-4 decisions in which the usual suspects have never met a cop they want to hold accountable or a sentence that deserves review.
I heard about one of them (Hernandez vs Mesa), which is frankly sickening, and just proves that law enforcement are unaccountable. "You want extrajudicial killings of children on the other side of the border? Thas cool." - This SCOTUS, apparently.
I'm not normally one to rail against law enforcement on principle, but fucking hell, they need to be held accountable when they fuck up. This qualified immunity shit applying to every fucking circumstance now (I believe JOliver had a segment on how it's cyclical, that because a cop hasn't breached qualified immunity, there's no standard by which qualified immunity can be breached), needs to be fucking done with.
But what was the other one? You mentioned two.
McKinney v. Arizona.
Thanks for that.
*reads up*
Oh, for fuck's sake.
"Sentenced under judge-only penalty procedures that were later declared unconstitutional,"
"McKinney petitioned the United States Supreme Court for review arguing that he was entitled to a new sentencing trial conducted in compliance with current constitutional standards."
What the fuck? SCOTUS is an adherent to "no takebacksies"?
Where's the fucking rule of law, when the consequences of an unconstitutional law is allowed to stand?
In a predictable result, they include two 5-4 decisions in which the usual suspects have never met a cop they want to hold accountable or a sentence that deserves review.
I heard about one of them (Hernandez vs Mesa), which is frankly sickening, and just proves that law enforcement are unaccountable. "You want extrajudicial killings of children on the other side of the border? Thas cool." - This SCOTUS, apparently.
I'm not normally one to rail against law enforcement on principle, but fucking hell, they need to be held accountable when they fuck up. This qualified immunity shit applying to every fucking circumstance now (I believe JOliver had a segment on how it's cyclical, that because a cop hasn't breached qualified immunity, there's no standard by which qualified immunity can be breached), needs to be fucking done with.
But what was the other one? You mentioned two.
McKinney v. Arizona.
Thanks for that.
*reads up*
Oh, for fuck's sake.
"Sentenced under judge-only penalty procedures that were later declared unconstitutional,"
"McKinney petitioned the United States Supreme Court for review arguing that he was entitled to a new sentencing trial conducted in compliance with current constitutional standards."
What the fuck? SCOTUS is an adherent to "no takebacksies"?
Where's the fucking rule of law, when the consequences of an unconstitutional law is allowed to stand?
This has been a long running problem with our legal system - instead of recognizing that something being ruled unconstitutional means that it no longer has the force of law, defendants are routinely required to fight for the law to be properly applied to them.
In a predictable result, they include two 5-4 decisions in which the usual suspects have never met a cop they want to hold accountable or a sentence that deserves review.
I heard about one of them (Hernandez vs Mesa), which is frankly sickening, and just proves that law enforcement are unaccountable. "You want extrajudicial killings of children on the other side of the border? Thas cool." - This SCOTUS, apparently.
I'm not normally one to rail against law enforcement on principle, but fucking hell, they need to be held accountable when they fuck up. This qualified immunity shit applying to every fucking circumstance now (I believe JOliver had a segment on how it's cyclical, that because a cop hasn't breached qualified immunity, there's no standard by which qualified immunity can be breached), needs to be fucking done with.
But what was the other one? You mentioned two.
McKinney v. Arizona.
Thanks for that.
*reads up*
Oh, for fuck's sake.
"Sentenced under judge-only penalty procedures that were later declared unconstitutional,"
"McKinney petitioned the United States Supreme Court for review arguing that he was entitled to a new sentencing trial conducted in compliance with current constitutional standards."
What the fuck? SCOTUS is an adherent to "no takebacksies"?
Where's the fucking rule of law, when the consequences of an unconstitutional law is allowed to stand?
Scalia didn't believe *Ironclad proof of innocence* was grounds for appeal. His replacement is much the same and the other conservatives aren't much better.
In a predictable result, they include two 5-4 decisions in which the usual suspects have never met a cop they want to hold accountable or a sentence that deserves review.
I heard about one of them (Hernandez vs Mesa), which is frankly sickening, and just proves that law enforcement are unaccountable. "You want extrajudicial killings of children on the other side of the border? Thas cool." - This SCOTUS, apparently.
I'm not normally one to rail against law enforcement on principle, but fucking hell, they need to be held accountable when they fuck up. This qualified immunity shit applying to every fucking circumstance now (I believe JOliver had a segment on how it's cyclical, that because a cop hasn't breached qualified immunity, there's no standard by which qualified immunity can be breached), needs to be fucking done with.
But what was the other one? You mentioned two.
McKinney v. Arizona.
Thanks for that.
*reads up*
Oh, for fuck's sake.
"Sentenced under judge-only penalty procedures that were later declared unconstitutional,"
"McKinney petitioned the United States Supreme Court for review arguing that he was entitled to a new sentencing trial conducted in compliance with current constitutional standards."
What the fuck? SCOTUS is an adherent to "no takebacksies"?
Where's the fucking rule of law, when the consequences of an unconstitutional law is allowed to stand?
Scalia didn't believe *Ironclad proof of innocence* was grounds for appeal. His replacement is much the same and the other conservatives aren't much better.
I believe that many of his arguments came down to "God will sort it out". And yes, in Scalia's case it would be a capital g. He wore his religion as a badge of honor and was quite proud in how obvious it was that he could not separate, nor did he want to, his legal decisions from his ecumenical ones.
All opinions are my own and in no way reflect that of my employer.
I feel like McKinney v. Arizona is actually probably the right call. Even if I disagree with one of the main points.
The case hinges on whether or not sentencing reviews are direct or indirect reviews (which is some real technical rules lawyering shit). And lets be clear here, the case has been decided (guilty) and is not being reviewed. Only the sentencing. And to be clear again, they are not reviewing if the sentencing guidelines should be changed (i.e. the death penalty is an acceptable punishment for the convicted crime, and that is not in question here). The only thing they are reviewing, is if all mitigating circumstances were considered when approving the death penalty.
The timeline basically goes like this:
92 - McKinney is convicted of killing two people, in a brutal fashion. Death penalty is part of the sentencing guidelines for this type of murder, if there are the correct mitigating factors. Judge at the time decides there are the correct mitigating factors and McKinney goes on death row.
96 - Death penalty sentences (not the case itself just the sentence) automatically get reviewed by arizona supreme court. In 96, the arizona supreme court agrees with original judge and affirms death penalty.
2002/2016 - two supreme court cases are decided that state that a jury (not a judge) must decide all mitigating factors for death penalty sentencing. That is to say, a jury must decide the facts of whether a mitigating factor exists or not. The jury does not decide what the sentence will be, that is still ultimately at the discretion of the judge. But the judge can't suddenly decide there are a bunch of factors that make the crime worse, and up the sentencing to the death penalty, without a jury agreeing that those factors exist before hand.
2018 - McKinney wins an appeal on sentencing that says his 96 and 92 sentencings did not properly account for his PTSD from childhood trauma.
2019 - Arizona supreme court looks at the 96 sentencing, and decides that even considering the PTSD, the death penalty is appropriate.
2019 - McKinney appeals, claiming that because his original sentencing did not have a jury deciding on the mitigating factors (it was all decided by a judge), his 2019 appeal review should fall under the new guidelines, which state that a jury has to decide on mitigating factors. Which means he would need a new jury to redo a sentencing judgement (which would still be decided by a judge, but only using the mitigating factors the jury agreed existed).
2020- Scotus does not agree with McKinney that a new jury sentencing is required, because the 2018 appeal and 2019 review are just reviewing the original 92/96 sentencing. They are not re-issuing a new sentencing, and as such do not require another trial.
In the end I think people who are angry here are angry because they don't like the death penalty. Which, I am sympathetic too, but doesn't really have anything to do with this case. It has long been the case that scotus decisions do not apply retroactively.
I think the key here is the appeals court in 2018. If they thought the sentencing was bullshit, they could have ordered a new one, with a jury. They could have said that the mitigating factors which lead to the death penalty sentence weren't conclusive enough and needed a jury. But instead they seemed fine with the original mitigating factors, and all they asked for was a review in light of a piece of evidence the court hadn't originally considered (his PTSD). Granting the new sentencing would just be repeating the process because you didn't like the outcome, which by this point, has been reaffirmed like 4 times.
At any rate it is unlikely to have very far reaching implications.
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
I feel like McKinney v. Arizona is actually probably the right call. Even if I disagree with one of the main points.
The case hinges on whether or not sentencing reviews are direct or indirect reviews (which is some real technical rules lawyering shit). And lets be clear here, the case has been decided (guilty) and is not being reviewed. Only the sentencing. And to be clear again, they are not reviewing if the sentencing guidelines should be changed (i.e. the death penalty is an acceptable punishment for the convicted crime, and that is not in question here). The only thing they are reviewing, is if all mitigating circumstances were considered when approving the death penalty.
The timeline basically goes like this:
92 - McKinney is convicted of killing two people, in a brutal fashion. Death penalty is part of the sentencing guidelines for this type of murder, if there are the correct mitigating factors. Judge at the time decides there are the correct mitigating factors and McKinney goes on death row.
96 - Death penalty sentences (not the case itself just the sentence) automatically get reviewed by arizona supreme court. In 96, the arizona supreme court agrees with original judge and affirms death penalty.
2002/2016 - two supreme court cases are decided that state that a jury (not a judge) must decide all mitigating factors for death penalty sentencing. That is to say, a jury must decide the facts of whether a mitigating factor exists or not. The jury does not decide what the sentence will be, that is still ultimately at the discretion of the judge. But the judge can't suddenly decide there are a bunch of factors that make the crime worse, and up the sentencing to the death penalty, without a jury agreeing that those factors exist before hand.
2018 - McKinney wins an appeal on sentencing that says his 96 and 92 sentencings did not properly account for his PTSD from childhood trauma.
2019 - Arizona supreme court looks at the 96 sentencing, and decides that even considering the PTSD, the death penalty is appropriate.
2019 - McKinney appeals, claiming that because his original sentencing did not have a jury deciding on the mitigating factors (it was all decided by a judge), his 2019 appeal review should fall under the new guidelines, which state that a jury has to decide on mitigating factors. Which means he would need a new jury to redo a sentencing judgement (which would still be decided by a judge, but only using the mitigating factors the jury agreed existed).
2020- Scotus does not agree with McKinney that a new jury sentencing is required, because the 2018 appeal and 2019 review are just reviewing the original 92/96 sentencing. They are not re-issuing a new sentencing, and as such do not require another trial.
In the end I think people who are angry here are angry because they don't like the death penalty. Which, I am sympathetic too, but doesn't really have anything to do with this case. It has long been the case that scotus decisions do not apply retroactively.
I think the key here is the appeals court in 2018. If they thought the sentencing was bullshit, they could have ordered a new one, with a jury. They could have said that the mitigating factors which lead to the death penalty sentence weren't conclusive enough and needed a jury. But instead they seemed fine with the original mitigating factors, and all they asked for was a review in light of a piece of evidence the court hadn't originally considered (his PTSD). Granting the new sentencing would just be repeating the process because you didn't like the outcome, which by this point, has been reaffirmed like 4 times.
At any rate it is unlikely to have very far reaching implications.
The underlying issue is that, per SCOTUS, his original sentencing was unconstitutional. The judgement of a state appeals court does not substitute for the constitutional requirement that a jury judge the relevant facts. The fundamental issue is that the facts of a case are a matter for the jury to decide. The appeals court should not be allowed to decide aggravating factors exist without a jury finding any more than a trial judge should.
Of course, what this really boils down to is "we'll let a decision that would be unconstitutional today stand because the state dotted their Is and crossed their Ts". But as noted these are (in part) the justices who decided that even if Jesus came down and proclaimed someone's innocence that he should be executed as long as all the paperwork was filled out correctly. As I said before - they have never met a death sentence they didn't like.
I feel like McKinney v. Arizona is actually probably the right call. Even if I disagree with one of the main points.
The case hinges on whether or not sentencing reviews are direct or indirect reviews (which is some real technical rules lawyering shit). And lets be clear here, the case has been decided (guilty) and is not being reviewed. Only the sentencing. And to be clear again, they are not reviewing if the sentencing guidelines should be changed (i.e. the death penalty is an acceptable punishment for the convicted crime, and that is not in question here). The only thing they are reviewing, is if all mitigating circumstances were considered when approving the death penalty.
The timeline basically goes like this:
92 - McKinney is convicted of killing two people, in a brutal fashion. Death penalty is part of the sentencing guidelines for this type of murder, if there are the correct mitigating factors. Judge at the time decides there are the correct mitigating factors and McKinney goes on death row.
96 - Death penalty sentences (not the case itself just the sentence) automatically get reviewed by arizona supreme court. In 96, the arizona supreme court agrees with original judge and affirms death penalty.
2002/2016 - two supreme court cases are decided that state that a jury (not a judge) must decide all mitigating factors for death penalty sentencing. That is to say, a jury must decide the facts of whether a mitigating factor exists or not. The jury does not decide what the sentence will be, that is still ultimately at the discretion of the judge. But the judge can't suddenly decide there are a bunch of factors that make the crime worse, and up the sentencing to the death penalty, without a jury agreeing that those factors exist before hand.
2018 - McKinney wins an appeal on sentencing that says his 96 and 92 sentencings did not properly account for his PTSD from childhood trauma.
2019 - Arizona supreme court looks at the 96 sentencing, and decides that even considering the PTSD, the death penalty is appropriate.
2019 - McKinney appeals, claiming that because his original sentencing did not have a jury deciding on the mitigating factors (it was all decided by a judge), his 2019 appeal review should fall under the new guidelines, which state that a jury has to decide on mitigating factors. Which means he would need a new jury to redo a sentencing judgement (which would still be decided by a judge, but only using the mitigating factors the jury agreed existed).
2020- Scotus does not agree with McKinney that a new jury sentencing is required, because the 2018 appeal and 2019 review are just reviewing the original 92/96 sentencing. They are not re-issuing a new sentencing, and as such do not require another trial.
In the end I think people who are angry here are angry because they don't like the death penalty. Which, I am sympathetic too, but doesn't really have anything to do with this case. It has long been the case that scotus decisions do not apply retroactively.
I think the key here is the appeals court in 2018. If they thought the sentencing was bullshit, they could have ordered a new one, with a jury. They could have said that the mitigating factors which lead to the death penalty sentence weren't conclusive enough and needed a jury. But instead they seemed fine with the original mitigating factors, and all they asked for was a review in light of a piece of evidence the court hadn't originally considered (his PTSD). Granting the new sentencing would just be repeating the process because you didn't like the outcome, which by this point, has been reaffirmed like 4 times.
At any rate it is unlikely to have very far reaching implications.
The underlying issue is that, per SCOTUS, his original sentencing was unconstitutional. The judgement of a state appeals court does not substitute for the constitutional requirement that a jury judge the relevant facts. The fundamental issue is that the facts of a case are a matter for the jury to decide. The appeals court should not be allowed to decide aggravating factors exist without a jury finding any more than a trial judge should.
Of course, what this really boils down to is "we'll let a decision that would be unconstitutional today stand because the state dotted their Is and crossed their Ts". But as noted these are (in part) the justices who decided that even if Jesus came down and proclaimed someone's innocence that he should be executed as long as all the paperwork was filled out correctly. As I said before - they have never met a death sentence they didn't like.
Disagree. Just because the case was reviewed does not mean it should be retried or resentenced or whatever. We do not nullify convictions or sentences because of changes in laws or scotus rulings of related cases.
That is and always has been the case. And I am not convinced that should change (although I will admit I am not convinced it should stand either).
Your central grievance seems to be that the case was decided on unconstitutional grounds. But that isn’t what matters for this case. Because again, we don’t overturn prior sentences or convictions.
The appeal was not won because the original sentencing was unconstitutional. The appeal was won because they felt like the sentencing did not consider his PTSD. Presumably the appeals court could have overturned all of his sentencing if they felt it was necessary. But they didn’t dispute the aggravating factors. They simply added a mitigating factor to be considered.
To put it another way, I think you would still argue that he deserved a new sentencing even if he had lost the appeal. And while there is debate to be had there, it suggests that your argument isn’t really about this SCOTUS case, which is just saying that you can review a sentencing without re-doing it.
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
I feel like McKinney v. Arizona is actually probably the right call. Even if I disagree with one of the main points.
The case hinges on whether or not sentencing reviews are direct or indirect reviews (which is some real technical rules lawyering shit). And lets be clear here, the case has been decided (guilty) and is not being reviewed. Only the sentencing. And to be clear again, they are not reviewing if the sentencing guidelines should be changed (i.e. the death penalty is an acceptable punishment for the convicted crime, and that is not in question here). The only thing they are reviewing, is if all mitigating circumstances were considered when approving the death penalty.
The timeline basically goes like this:
92 - McKinney is convicted of killing two people, in a brutal fashion. Death penalty is part of the sentencing guidelines for this type of murder, if there are the correct mitigating factors. Judge at the time decides there are the correct mitigating factors and McKinney goes on death row.
96 - Death penalty sentences (not the case itself just the sentence) automatically get reviewed by arizona supreme court. In 96, the arizona supreme court agrees with original judge and affirms death penalty.
2002/2016 - two supreme court cases are decided that state that a jury (not a judge) must decide all mitigating factors for death penalty sentencing. That is to say, a jury must decide the facts of whether a mitigating factor exists or not. The jury does not decide what the sentence will be, that is still ultimately at the discretion of the judge. But the judge can't suddenly decide there are a bunch of factors that make the crime worse, and up the sentencing to the death penalty, without a jury agreeing that those factors exist before hand.
2018 - McKinney wins an appeal on sentencing that says his 96 and 92 sentencings did not properly account for his PTSD from childhood trauma.
2019 - Arizona supreme court looks at the 96 sentencing, and decides that even considering the PTSD, the death penalty is appropriate.
2019 - McKinney appeals, claiming that because his original sentencing did not have a jury deciding on the mitigating factors (it was all decided by a judge), his 2019 appeal review should fall under the new guidelines, which state that a jury has to decide on mitigating factors. Which means he would need a new jury to redo a sentencing judgement (which would still be decided by a judge, but only using the mitigating factors the jury agreed existed).
2020- Scotus does not agree with McKinney that a new jury sentencing is required, because the 2018 appeal and 2019 review are just reviewing the original 92/96 sentencing. They are not re-issuing a new sentencing, and as such do not require another trial.
In the end I think people who are angry here are angry because they don't like the death penalty. Which, I am sympathetic too, but doesn't really have anything to do with this case. It has long been the case that scotus decisions do not apply retroactively.
I think the key here is the appeals court in 2018. If they thought the sentencing was bullshit, they could have ordered a new one, with a jury. They could have said that the mitigating factors which lead to the death penalty sentence weren't conclusive enough and needed a jury. But instead they seemed fine with the original mitigating factors, and all they asked for was a review in light of a piece of evidence the court hadn't originally considered (his PTSD). Granting the new sentencing would just be repeating the process because you didn't like the outcome, which by this point, has been reaffirmed like 4 times.
At any rate it is unlikely to have very far reaching implications.
The underlying issue is that, per SCOTUS, his original sentencing was unconstitutional. The judgement of a state appeals court does not substitute for the constitutional requirement that a jury judge the relevant facts. The fundamental issue is that the facts of a case are a matter for the jury to decide. The appeals court should not be allowed to decide aggravating factors exist without a jury finding any more than a trial judge should.
Of course, what this really boils down to is "we'll let a decision that would be unconstitutional today stand because the state dotted their Is and crossed their Ts". But as noted these are (in part) the justices who decided that even if Jesus came down and proclaimed someone's innocence that he should be executed as long as all the paperwork was filled out correctly. As I said before - they have never met a death sentence they didn't like.
Disagree. Just because the case was reviewed does not mean it should be retried or resentenced or whatever. We do not nullify convictions or sentences because of changes in laws or scotus rulings of related cases.
That is and always has been the case. And I am not convinced that should change (although I will admit I am not convinced it should stand either).
Your central grievance seems to be that the case was decided on unconstitutional grounds. But that isn’t what matters for this case. Because again, we don’t overturn prior sentences or convictions.
The appeal was not won because the original sentencing was unconstitutional. The appeal was won because they felt like the sentencing did not consider his PTSD. Presumably the appeals court could have overturned all of his sentencing if they felt it was necessary. But they didn’t dispute the aggravating factors. They simply added a mitigating factor to be considered.
To put it another way, I think you would still argue that he deserved a new sentencing even if he had lost the appeal. And while there is debate to be had there, it suggests that your argument isn’t really about this SCOTUS case, which is just saying that you can review a sentencing without re-doing it.
I would appreciate if you could divorce accusations of bias from relevant argument. Or are you going to also say the same of the four justices in dissent (not that you would be alone, the conservative justices have resorted to ad hominem in place of rebuttal here as well)?
I feel like McKinney v. Arizona is actually probably the right call. Even if I disagree with one of the main points.
The case hinges on whether or not sentencing reviews are direct or indirect reviews (which is some real technical rules lawyering shit). And lets be clear here, the case has been decided (guilty) and is not being reviewed. Only the sentencing. And to be clear again, they are not reviewing if the sentencing guidelines should be changed (i.e. the death penalty is an acceptable punishment for the convicted crime, and that is not in question here). The only thing they are reviewing, is if all mitigating circumstances were considered when approving the death penalty.
The timeline basically goes like this:
92 - McKinney is convicted of killing two people, in a brutal fashion. Death penalty is part of the sentencing guidelines for this type of murder, if there are the correct mitigating factors. Judge at the time decides there are the correct mitigating factors and McKinney goes on death row.
96 - Death penalty sentences (not the case itself just the sentence) automatically get reviewed by arizona supreme court. In 96, the arizona supreme court agrees with original judge and affirms death penalty.
2002/2016 - two supreme court cases are decided that state that a jury (not a judge) must decide all mitigating factors for death penalty sentencing. That is to say, a jury must decide the facts of whether a mitigating factor exists or not. The jury does not decide what the sentence will be, that is still ultimately at the discretion of the judge. But the judge can't suddenly decide there are a bunch of factors that make the crime worse, and up the sentencing to the death penalty, without a jury agreeing that those factors exist before hand.
2018 - McKinney wins an appeal on sentencing that says his 96 and 92 sentencings did not properly account for his PTSD from childhood trauma.
2019 - Arizona supreme court looks at the 96 sentencing, and decides that even considering the PTSD, the death penalty is appropriate.
2019 - McKinney appeals, claiming that because his original sentencing did not have a jury deciding on the mitigating factors (it was all decided by a judge), his 2019 appeal review should fall under the new guidelines, which state that a jury has to decide on mitigating factors. Which means he would need a new jury to redo a sentencing judgement (which would still be decided by a judge, but only using the mitigating factors the jury agreed existed).
2020- Scotus does not agree with McKinney that a new jury sentencing is required, because the 2018 appeal and 2019 review are just reviewing the original 92/96 sentencing. They are not re-issuing a new sentencing, and as such do not require another trial.
In the end I think people who are angry here are angry because they don't like the death penalty. Which, I am sympathetic too, but doesn't really have anything to do with this case. It has long been the case that scotus decisions do not apply retroactively.
I think the key here is the appeals court in 2018. If they thought the sentencing was bullshit, they could have ordered a new one, with a jury. They could have said that the mitigating factors which lead to the death penalty sentence weren't conclusive enough and needed a jury. But instead they seemed fine with the original mitigating factors, and all they asked for was a review in light of a piece of evidence the court hadn't originally considered (his PTSD). Granting the new sentencing would just be repeating the process because you didn't like the outcome, which by this point, has been reaffirmed like 4 times.
At any rate it is unlikely to have very far reaching implications.
The underlying issue is that, per SCOTUS, his original sentencing was unconstitutional. The judgement of a state appeals court does not substitute for the constitutional requirement that a jury judge the relevant facts. The fundamental issue is that the facts of a case are a matter for the jury to decide. The appeals court should not be allowed to decide aggravating factors exist without a jury finding any more than a trial judge should.
Of course, what this really boils down to is "we'll let a decision that would be unconstitutional today stand because the state dotted their Is and crossed their Ts". But as noted these are (in part) the justices who decided that even if Jesus came down and proclaimed someone's innocence that he should be executed as long as all the paperwork was filled out correctly. As I said before - they have never met a death sentence they didn't like.
Disagree. Just because the case was reviewed does not mean it should be retried or resentenced or whatever. We do not nullify convictions or sentences because of changes in laws or scotus rulings of related cases.
That is and always has been the case. And I am not convinced that should change (although I will admit I am not convinced it should stand either).
Your central grievance seems to be that the case was decided on unconstitutional grounds. But that isn’t what matters for this case. Because again, we don’t overturn prior sentences or convictions.
The appeal was not won because the original sentencing was unconstitutional. The appeal was won because they felt like the sentencing did not consider his PTSD. Presumably the appeals court could have overturned all of his sentencing if they felt it was necessary. But they didn’t dispute the aggravating factors. They simply added a mitigating factor to be considered.
To put it another way, I think you would still argue that he deserved a new sentencing even if he had lost the appeal. And while there is debate to be had there, it suggests that your argument isn’t really about this SCOTUS case, which is just saying that you can review a sentencing without re-doing it.
I would appreciate if you could divorce accusations of bias from relevant argument. Or are you going to also say the same of the four justices in dissent?
I honestly don’t know what your trying to say. I feel like my characterization of your point was accurate, but if you think it wasn’t then tell me where there is a disconnect between what I am arguing and what you are arguing.
"The world is a mess, and I just need to rule it" - Dr Horrible
I feel like McKinney v. Arizona is actually probably the right call. Even if I disagree with one of the main points.
The case hinges on whether or not sentencing reviews are direct or indirect reviews (which is some real technical rules lawyering shit). And lets be clear here, the case has been decided (guilty) and is not being reviewed. Only the sentencing. And to be clear again, they are not reviewing if the sentencing guidelines should be changed (i.e. the death penalty is an acceptable punishment for the convicted crime, and that is not in question here). The only thing they are reviewing, is if all mitigating circumstances were considered when approving the death penalty.
The timeline basically goes like this:
92 - McKinney is convicted of killing two people, in a brutal fashion. Death penalty is part of the sentencing guidelines for this type of murder, if there are the correct mitigating factors. Judge at the time decides there are the correct mitigating factors and McKinney goes on death row.
96 - Death penalty sentences (not the case itself just the sentence) automatically get reviewed by arizona supreme court. In 96, the arizona supreme court agrees with original judge and affirms death penalty.
2002/2016 - two supreme court cases are decided that state that a jury (not a judge) must decide all mitigating factors for death penalty sentencing. That is to say, a jury must decide the facts of whether a mitigating factor exists or not. The jury does not decide what the sentence will be, that is still ultimately at the discretion of the judge. But the judge can't suddenly decide there are a bunch of factors that make the crime worse, and up the sentencing to the death penalty, without a jury agreeing that those factors exist before hand.
2018 - McKinney wins an appeal on sentencing that says his 96 and 92 sentencings did not properly account for his PTSD from childhood trauma.
2019 - Arizona supreme court looks at the 96 sentencing, and decides that even considering the PTSD, the death penalty is appropriate.
2019 - McKinney appeals, claiming that because his original sentencing did not have a jury deciding on the mitigating factors (it was all decided by a judge), his 2019 appeal review should fall under the new guidelines, which state that a jury has to decide on mitigating factors. Which means he would need a new jury to redo a sentencing judgement (which would still be decided by a judge, but only using the mitigating factors the jury agreed existed).
2020- Scotus does not agree with McKinney that a new jury sentencing is required, because the 2018 appeal and 2019 review are just reviewing the original 92/96 sentencing. They are not re-issuing a new sentencing, and as such do not require another trial.
In the end I think people who are angry here are angry because they don't like the death penalty. Which, I am sympathetic too, but doesn't really have anything to do with this case. It has long been the case that scotus decisions do not apply retroactively.
I think the key here is the appeals court in 2018. If they thought the sentencing was bullshit, they could have ordered a new one, with a jury. They could have said that the mitigating factors which lead to the death penalty sentence weren't conclusive enough and needed a jury. But instead they seemed fine with the original mitigating factors, and all they asked for was a review in light of a piece of evidence the court hadn't originally considered (his PTSD). Granting the new sentencing would just be repeating the process because you didn't like the outcome, which by this point, has been reaffirmed like 4 times.
At any rate it is unlikely to have very far reaching implications.
The underlying issue is that, per SCOTUS, his original sentencing was unconstitutional. The judgement of a state appeals court does not substitute for the constitutional requirement that a jury judge the relevant facts. The fundamental issue is that the facts of a case are a matter for the jury to decide. The appeals court should not be allowed to decide aggravating factors exist without a jury finding any more than a trial judge should.
Of course, what this really boils down to is "we'll let a decision that would be unconstitutional today stand because the state dotted their Is and crossed their Ts". But as noted these are (in part) the justices who decided that even if Jesus came down and proclaimed someone's innocence that he should be executed as long as all the paperwork was filled out correctly. As I said before - they have never met a death sentence they didn't like.
Disagree. Just because the case was reviewed does not mean it should be retried or resentenced or whatever. We do not nullify convictions or sentences because of changes in laws or scotus rulings of related cases.
That is and always has been the case. And I am not convinced that should change (although I will admit I am not convinced it should stand either).
Your central grievance seems to be that the case was decided on unconstitutional grounds. But that isn’t what matters for this case. Because again, we don’t overturn prior sentences or convictions.
The appeal was not won because the original sentencing was unconstitutional. The appeal was won because they felt like the sentencing did not consider his PTSD. Presumably the appeals court could have overturned all of his sentencing if they felt it was necessary. But they didn’t dispute the aggravating factors. They simply added a mitigating factor to be considered.
To put it another way, I think you would still argue that he deserved a new sentencing even if he had lost the appeal. And while there is debate to be had there, it suggests that your argument isn’t really about this SCOTUS case, which is just saying that you can review a sentencing without re-doing it.
Yes, that's the whole problem. Unconstitutional is unconstitutional, and it is beyond ridiculous that unconstitutional rulings are allowed to stand just because they are "prior rulings". The response to the SCOTUS ruling a certain law or practice unconstitutional is that rulings based on it - especially in criminal law - should be automatically vacated.
Now that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case, it will not go back to the trial judge for that analysis. The justices will hear the case in the fall, with a decision by June of 2021.
This will definitely get more coverage than the court cases that lead up to it, making it kind of hard for Trump to talk about protecting preexisting conditions and healthcare as his administration argues to strip them away.
Now that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case, it will not go back to the trial judge for that analysis. The justices will hear the case in the fall, with a decision by June of 2021.
This will definitely get more coverage than the court cases that lead up to it, making it kind of hard for Trump to talk about protecting preexisting conditions and healthcare as his administration argues to strip them away.
Arguments tend to get less coverage than decisions unfortunately.
It's a ridiculous case and in a non partian judiciary would get instantly annihilated but shrug.jpg
Posts
I believe the decision is just to let that lower court case to proceed.
Isn't that normal, then?
I'm guessing that the Scotus appeal was based on some sort of pre-trial motion (which, based on ElJeffe's reaction to the news, I'm assuming was by the NR) that they though should have been granted, only for SCOTUS to basically go "nope, lower court got it right/not the time for us to decide on it, now go fight your case there."
This has been a long running issue with the SCOTUS in general, tending to fall on the side of the prosecution.
Not surprising given basically all the recent scotus have been prosecutors. Defense attorneys are almost never selected because the shit show of confirmation would become even shittier to try to nominate somebody who defended "bad people".
https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/01/government-gets-green-light-to-implement-public-charge-rule-pending-appeals/
This is a fucking weird ruling. Because they are apparently not ruling on the immigration question at hand (which is still being appealed to the 2nd circuit), but just on the ability of judges to issue injunctions outside of their jurisdiction.
I mean just look at this shit:
So looking at all of the confusing shit that happened before the universal injunction, the supreme court comes to the decision that the confusing shit is much preferable to the single injunction before them, because only the supreme court has jurisdiction over the whole US. everyone else must stick to their rightful place.
Like the actual conversational sarcasm?
Gorsuch, yeah. Threw in a LOTR reference to seem cool.
Cool
The purpose of this ruling is to secure complete power in the court conservatives control absolutely, the supreme court. If the lower courts cannot issue injunctions, then the government has the ability to either...
1) Implement whatever it wants while slow rolling the decision to the court
2) Make the lower courts irrelevant, because they cannot meaningfully change any aspect of law.
It effectively means that regardless of the workload of the court, the government and the supreme court can partner together to do anything they want, whereas previously it might have been impossible to both SEEM as if you were fairly hearing cases in the SC while also being able to implement as much obviously illegal crap as you want. Now the SC can let lower court rulings sit for years if they don't want to make unpopular calls, but also don't want to seem to rush individual cases.
(I fear they may succeed.)
Jesus I thought that was a hot take from a blog...
What's the point of being an attorney if you're not going to slather your opinions with thick layers of lawyer shade?
That's only the concurrence, only two of the conservatives were willing to be that open about it.
Though it occurs to me. One principle of the courts is that they can't hear disputes for which they can't provide a remedy. Does that mean such a ruling would just throw all such cases under SCOTUS as original jurisdiction (in which they can't refuse to hear it)?
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
From my understanding, it would still require either a "Minister or Consul" to be involved, or US state itself to file suit (as it then would be a Party in the suit) I'm sure there are few state legislatures/AGs on both sides that would be absolutely fine with doing that.
The other possibility is that we get patchwork rulings where the US is prevented from doing X in Y district but not Z district, which would get hella confusing for things like green card applications, where different standards would apply solely based on which federal district you live in.
I feel like shennangians involving one or the other are going to start happening that are going to make things a massive headache for SCOTUS until they or Congress (because Congress has the power to set what jurisdiction inferior courts have, they could pass a law that states federal appeals districts do have this power) act on fixing it.
In a predictable result, they include two 5-4 decisions in which the usual suspects have never met a cop they want to hold accountable or a sentence that deserves review.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
I heard about one of them (Hernandez vs Mesa), which is frankly sickening, and just proves that law enforcement are unaccountable. "You want extrajudicial killings of children on the other side of the border? Thas cool." - This SCOTUS, apparently.
I'm not normally one to rail against law enforcement on principle, but fucking hell, they need to be held accountable when they fuck up. This qualified immunity shit applying to every fucking circumstance now (I believe JOliver had a segment on how it's cyclical, that because a cop hasn't breached qualified immunity, there's no standard by which qualified immunity can be breached), needs to be fucking done with.
But what was the other one? You mentioned two.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
McKinney v. Arizona.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
First step would probably be pressuring your state government to revoke that qualified immunity. And also ban patrol officers from carrying firearms. Conservatives and police unions would raise hell about it and anyone who'd vote for it would be painted as being weak on crime, so it's unlikely to get anywhere, but that's how you solve it.
Thanks for that.
*reads up*
Oh, for fuck's sake.
"Sentenced under judge-only penalty procedures that were later declared unconstitutional,"
"McKinney petitioned the United States Supreme Court for review arguing that he was entitled to a new sentencing trial conducted in compliance with current constitutional standards."
What the fuck? SCOTUS is an adherent to "no takebacksies"?
Where's the fucking rule of law, when the consequences of an unconstitutional law is allowed to stand?
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
This has been a long running problem with our legal system - instead of recognizing that something being ruled unconstitutional means that it no longer has the force of law, defendants are routinely required to fight for the law to be properly applied to them.
Scalia didn't believe *Ironclad proof of innocence* was grounds for appeal. His replacement is much the same and the other conservatives aren't much better.
I believe that many of his arguments came down to "God will sort it out". And yes, in Scalia's case it would be a capital g. He wore his religion as a badge of honor and was quite proud in how obvious it was that he could not separate, nor did he want to, his legal decisions from his ecumenical ones.
The case hinges on whether or not sentencing reviews are direct or indirect reviews (which is some real technical rules lawyering shit). And lets be clear here, the case has been decided (guilty) and is not being reviewed. Only the sentencing. And to be clear again, they are not reviewing if the sentencing guidelines should be changed (i.e. the death penalty is an acceptable punishment for the convicted crime, and that is not in question here). The only thing they are reviewing, is if all mitigating circumstances were considered when approving the death penalty.
The timeline basically goes like this:
92 - McKinney is convicted of killing two people, in a brutal fashion. Death penalty is part of the sentencing guidelines for this type of murder, if there are the correct mitigating factors. Judge at the time decides there are the correct mitigating factors and McKinney goes on death row.
96 - Death penalty sentences (not the case itself just the sentence) automatically get reviewed by arizona supreme court. In 96, the arizona supreme court agrees with original judge and affirms death penalty.
2002/2016 - two supreme court cases are decided that state that a jury (not a judge) must decide all mitigating factors for death penalty sentencing. That is to say, a jury must decide the facts of whether a mitigating factor exists or not. The jury does not decide what the sentence will be, that is still ultimately at the discretion of the judge. But the judge can't suddenly decide there are a bunch of factors that make the crime worse, and up the sentencing to the death penalty, without a jury agreeing that those factors exist before hand.
2018 - McKinney wins an appeal on sentencing that says his 96 and 92 sentencings did not properly account for his PTSD from childhood trauma.
2019 - Arizona supreme court looks at the 96 sentencing, and decides that even considering the PTSD, the death penalty is appropriate.
2019 - McKinney appeals, claiming that because his original sentencing did not have a jury deciding on the mitigating factors (it was all decided by a judge), his 2019 appeal review should fall under the new guidelines, which state that a jury has to decide on mitigating factors. Which means he would need a new jury to redo a sentencing judgement (which would still be decided by a judge, but only using the mitigating factors the jury agreed existed).
2020- Scotus does not agree with McKinney that a new jury sentencing is required, because the 2018 appeal and 2019 review are just reviewing the original 92/96 sentencing. They are not re-issuing a new sentencing, and as such do not require another trial.
In the end I think people who are angry here are angry because they don't like the death penalty. Which, I am sympathetic too, but doesn't really have anything to do with this case. It has long been the case that scotus decisions do not apply retroactively.
I think the key here is the appeals court in 2018. If they thought the sentencing was bullshit, they could have ordered a new one, with a jury. They could have said that the mitigating factors which lead to the death penalty sentence weren't conclusive enough and needed a jury. But instead they seemed fine with the original mitigating factors, and all they asked for was a review in light of a piece of evidence the court hadn't originally considered (his PTSD). Granting the new sentencing would just be repeating the process because you didn't like the outcome, which by this point, has been reaffirmed like 4 times.
At any rate it is unlikely to have very far reaching implications.
The underlying issue is that, per SCOTUS, his original sentencing was unconstitutional. The judgement of a state appeals court does not substitute for the constitutional requirement that a jury judge the relevant facts. The fundamental issue is that the facts of a case are a matter for the jury to decide. The appeals court should not be allowed to decide aggravating factors exist without a jury finding any more than a trial judge should.
Edit: Found it : https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/12/argument-preview-justices-to-take-on-procedural-but-important-questions-in-case-of-arizona-death-row-inmate/ The key argument is because the state supreme court had to reopen sentencing it had to apply current law.
Of course, what this really boils down to is "we'll let a decision that would be unconstitutional today stand because the state dotted their Is and crossed their Ts". But as noted these are (in part) the justices who decided that even if Jesus came down and proclaimed someone's innocence that he should be executed as long as all the paperwork was filled out correctly. As I said before - they have never met a death sentence they didn't like.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Disagree. Just because the case was reviewed does not mean it should be retried or resentenced or whatever. We do not nullify convictions or sentences because of changes in laws or scotus rulings of related cases.
That is and always has been the case. And I am not convinced that should change (although I will admit I am not convinced it should stand either).
Your central grievance seems to be that the case was decided on unconstitutional grounds. But that isn’t what matters for this case. Because again, we don’t overturn prior sentences or convictions.
The appeal was not won because the original sentencing was unconstitutional. The appeal was won because they felt like the sentencing did not consider his PTSD. Presumably the appeals court could have overturned all of his sentencing if they felt it was necessary. But they didn’t dispute the aggravating factors. They simply added a mitigating factor to be considered.
To put it another way, I think you would still argue that he deserved a new sentencing even if he had lost the appeal. And while there is debate to be had there, it suggests that your argument isn’t really about this SCOTUS case, which is just saying that you can review a sentencing without re-doing it.
I would appreciate if you could divorce accusations of bias from relevant argument. Or are you going to also say the same of the four justices in dissent (not that you would be alone, the conservative justices have resorted to ad hominem in place of rebuttal here as well)?
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
I honestly don’t know what your trying to say. I feel like my characterization of your point was accurate, but if you think it wasn’t then tell me where there is a disconnect between what I am arguing and what you are arguing.
Yes, that's the whole problem. Unconstitutional is unconstitutional, and it is beyond ridiculous that unconstitutional rulings are allowed to stand just because they are "prior rulings". The response to the SCOTUS ruling a certain law or practice unconstitutional is that rulings based on it - especially in criminal law - should be automatically vacated.
This will definitely get more coverage than the court cases that lead up to it, making it kind of hard for Trump to talk about protecting preexisting conditions and healthcare as his administration argues to strip them away.
Arguments tend to get less coverage than decisions unfortunately.
It's a ridiculous case and in a non partian judiciary would get instantly annihilated but shrug.jpg