Posted: August 7th, 2022

Criminal Justice-Related Cases

The appellate course of is a cornerstone of a democratic legal justice system. Nevertheless, many individuals are unaware of the method that a case could endure earlier than it finds itself earlier than the Supreme Courtroom of the USA (SCOTUS). In truth, as you have got learn, not all instances attain the best courtroom within the land. On this exercise, you’ll hint the trail of a legal case from the decrease courtroom by figuring out the information of the case, the ruling on the appellate courtroom degree, the important thing authorized questions and the way they relate to the Structure, and the ruling within the case as made by the SCOTUS.

Full the next for this task:

Use this Website online to pick out instances, and utilizing the time period, choose 2 legal justice-related instances that have been determined inside the final three years. You may decide that it’s a legal case by searching for both the “United States” or the identify of a state within the case identify. If you don’t see the identify of a state or “United States” within the title of the case, that signifies that it’s a civil case. Don’t choose a civil case.

Present the next for every case in your individual phrases:

A abstract of every case
A abstract of the procedural historical past of the case, or the way it wound its method by way of the courtroom system to the USA Supreme Courtroom
The important thing information
The appellate courtroom choice and reasoning
Establish the important thing authorized questions or points that have been argued earlier than the SCOTUS and the choice
Establish the Supreme Courtroom Justice writing the bulk opinion, summarize the choice, and if relevant, summarize the concurring and dissenting opinions
Lastly, clarify whether or not you agree with the choice within the case, and clarify why.

Web site:
https://www.oyez.org/
—

Criminal Justice-Related Cases
Identify
Institutional Affiliation
Terry v. United States, 593 U.S. (June 14, 2021)
Case Abstract
In 2008, Tarahrick Terry was convicted and pled responsible to the possession of cocaine base that can also be known as the ‘crack cocaine’ with an intention of distributing. Right now, the crack offenses that concerned 50g or extra of crack cocaine attracted a 10 12 months obligatory minimal beneath the § 841(b)(1)(A). If the crack offense concerned 5g or extra of crack then it attracted a 5year obligatory minimal beneath § 841(b)(1)(B) and in case the case concerned crack under 5g then it didn’t carry a compulsory minimal beneath § 841(b)(1)(C). Terry’s offense concerned 4g of crack and therefore he wouldn’t be topic to the obligatory minimal requirement. He certified as a profession offender beneath the Sentencing Pointers and therefore obtained a sentence of 188 months imprisonment from the District Courtroom.
In 2010, Congress handed the Honest Sentencing Act that changed the load limits for drug offenses. In 2018, Congress enacted the First Step Act that outlined the ‘coated offenses’ and having the Honest Sentencing Act being utilized, Terry petitioned the District Courtroom to scale back the sentence as a result of passage of those legal guidelines. The USA District Courtroom for the Southern District of Florida dominated that the offenses weren’t coated and therefore his sentence was not eligible for discount.
The Procedural Historical past of the Case
Terry appealed the District Courtroom’s ruling at the USA Courtroom of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. He argued that the conviction was eligible to be coated beneath the First Step Act for the reason that Honest Sentencing act of 2010 modified the load ceiling for the possession of crack cocaine. The modification had made the part one of many coated offenses and for the reason that Act retroactively up to date the penalties for the coated offenses. The courtroom states that the act explicitly states it can’t be utilized to a case in order that it may be required to scale back the sentence. Subsequently, Terry’s offense was not coated by the First Step Act and therefore the Appeals courtroom affirmed the ruling for the Southern District of Florida.
Terry petitioned the choice to the Supreme Courtroom indicating that there was a break up circuit choice on if there have been three possession crimes that may very well be resentenced beneath the First Step Act. The Supreme Courtroom granted certiorari in January 2021 and issued its choice on June 14, 2021.
Key Authorized Problem Earlier than SCOTUS
Do pre-August three, 2010, crack offenders sentenced beneath 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C) have a “coated offense” beneath Part 404 of the First Step Act?
Supreme Courtroom Resolution
The Supreme Courtroom unanimously affirmed the choice by the Eleventh Circuit asserting that Terry and different individuals pursuing 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C) weren’t eligible for the lowered sentences beneath the First Step Act 2018. It is because they weren’t initially convicted of offenses that triggered minimal obligatory sentences, contemplating that the penalties for these sentenced beneath 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C) are much like what they have been when Congress wrote the legislation creating the unfair racial disparities between crack and powder cocaine, then the courtroom concluded that 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C) had not been modified by the Honest Sentencing Act. Justice Sotomayor’s concurrence assertion highlighted the injustice of the end result and urged Congress to amend the First Sentencing Act to explicitly enable resentencing for individuals like Terry.
Private opinion:
I do agree with the case’s development and supreme final result for the reason that judges did look into crucial detailing inside the Honest Sentencing Act. iot is vital that they don’t vaguely take into account Terry’s case to be a part of the coated offenses by utilizing the language used within the legislation. Notably, calling upon Congress for a brand new legislation that might treatment conditions resembling Terry’s case was crucial.
Borden v. United States, 593 U.S. (June 10, 2021)
Case Abstract
Charles Borden was caught by the police having a pistol throughout a site visitors cease in April 2017 which he subsequently pleaded responsible for possession of a firearm as a felon. This violated the 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). At sentencing the federal government indicated that the case concerned the Armed Profession Criminal Act (ACCA) provision which imposed a 15 12 months minimal on anybody that has been convicted for being a felon possessing a firearm when the person has three or extra ‘violent felony’ convictions. The time period ‘violent felony’ has been outlined in pertinent because the felony that has a component of use, tried use or threatened use of bodily power towards one other particular person. Borden had earlier Tennessee aggravated assault convictions that the federal government was utilizing for the sentence suggestion. Borden objected, indicating that one in every of them, particularly the reckless aggravated assault, was not certified to be a ‘violent felony; beneath ACCA’s clause on using power. Retroactively, the district courtroom utilized the Sixth Circuit precedent to carry that the reckless aggravated assault did represent a violent felony beneath the ‘use of power’ clause beneath ACCA. Subsequently the district courtroom held that the three earlier aggravated assault instances have been ‘crimes of violence’ to designate Borden as an armed profession legal and 15 years’ imprisonment.
The Procedural Historical past of the Case
Borden appealed the District Courtroom’s ruling on the Courtroom of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit who affirmed the ruling, the courtroom asserted the ruling on reckless conduct was a part of the ‘violent felony’ instances which triggered the ACCA sentencing enhancement. The defendant, Borden, appealed the ruling to the USA Supreme Courtroom. The Supreme Courtroom granted certiorari in 2020 to resolve the circuit break up.
Key Authorized Problem Earlier than SCOTUS
Does the “use of power” clause within the Armed Profession Criminal Act (the “ACCA”), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(i) embody crimes with a mens rea of mere recklessness?
Supreme Courtroom Resolution
The Supreme Courtroom sided with Borden’s argument and reversed the Enchantment’s choice, three justices made the plurality opinion authored by Justice Kagan whereas Justice Thomas supplied the important thing fisth vote within the opinion that concurred with the judgment solely. The plurality opinion asserted that when establishing whether or not a priori conviction certified as a violent felony for ACCA functions, the courts are wanted to make use of the specific strategy, the strategy required that the precise conduct that led to the cost is irrelevant to figuring out a violent felony. Fairly, the focus ought to be on offense’s components that do contain the use, tried use or threatened use of bodily power towards one other particular person.
Within the strategy’s software, the plurality opinion concluded that the offense with a mens rea requirement didn’t meet the violent felony definition beneath the weather clause, the opinion supported the conclusion by saying that the phrase ‘towards one other’ when modifying the ‘use of power’ demanded that the perpetrator directed their motion or targetted one other particular person. Reckless conduct just isn’t focused on this prescribed method. Subsequently, it is just the crimes with the mens rea requirement of purposeful or realizing conduct that did qualify because the violent felonies for ACA functions. For the reason that Tennessee reckless aggravated assault statute beneath which the defendant had beforehand been convicted had the mens rea requirement of recklessness, the conviction was not a violent felony. Thus, Borden was not correctly sentenced to the 15 12 months obligatory minimal sentences outlined by ACCA.
In his concurring opinion, Justice Thomas agreed that the reckless aggravated assault didn’t meet the necessities within the components clause. Nevertheless, he contended that Borden ought to have been deemed an armed profession legal beneath the residual clause provision of ACCA. Nevertheless, this clause has beforehand been declared unconstitutional within the Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015). Justice Thomas refuted Johson’s ruling stating that it wanted to be overruled. For the reason that subject was not earlier than the courtroom previous to Borden, then he agreed with the plurality opinion that Borden was improperly sentenced beneath ACCA.
Justice Kavanaugh made his dissenting opinion that was joined by Chief Justice Robeerts and Justices Alito and Barrett, the dissenters disagreed with the plurality’s interpretation of the weather clause. They highlighted that it contained no mens rea requirement in its face, Justice Kavanaugh identified that the courtroom’s choice was extra more likely to threaten public security by way of a discount of the sentences of violent offenders.
Private Opinion
I agree with the Supreme Courtroom’s choice that Borden’s aggravated assault case had no mens rea necessities which makes it not a part of violent felonies.

References
Borden v. United States, 593 U.S. (June 10, 2021). Retrieved from https://www.oyez.org/instances/2020/19-5410
Terry v. United States, 593 U.S. (June 14, 2021). Retrieved from https://www.oyez.org/instances/2020/20-5904

Order | Check Discount

Tags: Criminal Justice-Related Cases