Supreme Court Annual Report
Justice Roberts’ 2013 annual report on the Supreme Court. Here is a link to the Report.
Supreme Court To Hear Tennessee Case Regarding Gun Ban For Domestic Abusers
U.S. v. Castleman
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a Tennessee case about whether one man’s conviction for domestic assault is sufficient to justify him being unable to own a gun. The case, U.S. v. Castleman, will answer the question of whether the state conviction rises to the level needed to qualify under a federal weapon ban.
The case began back in 2001 when James Castleman pleaded guilty to a single count of domestic assault, a misdemeanor under Tennessee law. Under federal law this conviction would prevent him from purchasing firearms. The current federal legislation bans not only the purchase, but also the possession or transportation of guns and ammunition by anyone who has been convicted of even low-level domestic violence.
Years after his guilty plea, federal agents launched an investigation into a murder that took place in Chicago and ended up connecting Castleman and his wife to a scheme that involved running guns on the black market. According to federal investigators, Castleman’s wife would purchase the guns from a legitimate dealer, claiming that she was the one who would use and possess the weapons. However, after filling out the required federal paperwork, the woman would then turn the guns over to her husband who would resell them to others.
The case was taken before a grand jury where Castleman was indicted on two counts of illegal possession of firearms. A federal judge then decided to dismiss the charges, ultimately holding that Castleman’s misdemeanor conviction for domestic assault did not qualify as “domestic violence” under federal law. The federal law required a person be convicted of using or attempting to use violent physical force, something the judge decided did not take place in Castleman’s case.
Castleman’s case then moved on to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed the lower court’s decision. The Sixth Circuit agreed that the government improperly used Tennessee’s overly broad definition of domestic assault to prevent Castleman from owning a gun. Tennessee’s law included everything from causing an abrasion to requiring hospitalization under the umbrella of domestic assault; something the Sixth Circuit said meant that some offenders were unjustly denied the ability to own guns under the more serious domestic violence provision of federal gun laws.
The Supreme Court will now hear the case and decide whether a conviction for misdemeanor domestic assault in Tennessee qualifies as a conviction for domestic violence under the federal weapons ban.
To read the full opinion from the Sixth Circuit, click here.
See Our Related Blog Posts:
Supreme Court Upholds Trial Court’s Dismissal of DUI Charges After Video of Arrest Lost
Supreme Court Orders Judges To Stay Away From Fact Finding Regarding Mandatory Minimums
Supreme Court Tackles Two Drug Cases
Last week, the Supreme Court heard two important criminal law cases involving drugs, both of which fit with a larger theme of clarifying what prosecutors must prove before they can successfully convict a defendant of various federal offenses.
The first case involves an appeal by Marcus Burrage, a man from Iowa who was convicted of distributing heroin that led to the death of one of his customers. The other case, of Justus Rosemond, concerns the man’s federal conviction in Utah for aiding and abetting the use of a firearm during drug trafficking. Both men were ultimately convicted and have had their convictions upheld on appeal, with each having been sentenced to more than a decade in prison.
In both cases the defendants appealed their long prison stays. In the case of Burrage, he has argued that prosecutors must show that the heroin he sold was more than just one of several possible causes of death. During his trial, the prosecutors had experts testify that the heroin was a contributing factor in the man’s death as he had also ingested several other drugs prior to his demise. Burrage claims that this fact is legally problematic to the prosecutor’s case because it shows that they failed to definitively link Burrage’s heroin with the victim’s death.
During oral argument, several justices expressed dismay that the government has been given so much latitude in prosecuting defendants for such crimes. The law says that defendants face a minimum 20-year sentence if “death or serious bodily injury” results from the sale of heroin. The problem in Burrage’s case is that while death did occur following the sale of heroin, there was absolutely no evidence put forward by prosecutors to demonstrate that the heroin was what caused the victim’s death.
In Rosemond’s case, the justices heard about how he was found guilty of four charges related to a shooting that took place in Utah back in 2007 following a botched drug deal. Rosemond’s defense attorneys argued that prosecutors should have been required to show that their client took some steps to encourage the use of the firearm that was ultimately discharged during the encounter before he could be convicted of “aiding and abetting.” During his initial trial there was never any evidence put forward to conclude whether it was Rosemond or his accomplice that had acted as the shooter.
Several justices, notably Ruth Bader Ginsburg, said that Rosemond’s 10-year prison sentence seemed a “bit much” given that his involvement was never fully fleshed out and that his participation in the underlying crime only resulted in a four-year sentence. Given some of the unhappiness noted among the justices with the lower court decisions criminal defense attorneys are optimistic that the cases could lead to a stiffening of requirements for prosecutors.
Listen to oral arguments in the Burrage case here.
Listen to oral arguments in the Rosemond case here.
Supreme Court To Hear Death Row Appeal Concerning IQ Test
The Supreme Court announced that it would hear an appeal from a death row inmate in Florida who was ruled mentally disabled in 1992 but later found to be competent after receiving the minimum score on an IQ test. The Court will now decide whether the man is competent and if his execution should move forward.
The Court issued an order saying that it would hear the case and decide whether Florida behaved appropriately when determining whether Freddie Hall was mentally disabled. The case is an important one given that it allows the Court to address the issue of mental capacity and the death penalty once again. Back in 2002 the Court ruled that states could not execute someone who was mentally disabled. The majority wrote that doing so would amount to a violation of the Constitution’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. However, the 2002 ruling left it up to the state courts to decide who was and who was not disabled.
The case involving Hall allows the Supreme Court to revisit the controversial subject matter and possibly even impose more defined guidelines for states to use when determining mental disability. Many criminal defense experts say they expect the ruling to affect more than just Hall’s case, and that if guidelines are issues it could impact cases in states across the country.
Currently, 32 out of the 50 states allow for the death penalty. However, of the states that permit execution, only a few use different definitions of mental disability than the one approved by the American Psychiatric Association. These states include Florida, Georgia and Texas.
According to the APA, intellectual disability should be assessed not only through standardized examinations, such as an IQ test, but also based on evaluations by trained clinicians. These examinations should involve assessments of how the subject performs everyday tasks such as personal care and how they interact with others.
In this case, 68-year-old Hall was convicted in the shooting deaths of a police officer and a pregnant woman back in 1978. The state considered Hall’s competence for the first time in 19992 and found him to be mentally disabled. However, after the Supreme Court’s 2002 ruling, all death row inmates were given new IQ tests. The second time around Hall scored a 71, technically qualifying as competent under Florida’s rules.
IQ tests are measured on scales between 45 and 155, with the average score being 100. In Florida, a person can be found mentally disabled if they meet three qualifications. First, the person must have an IQ score below 70, demonstrating below average intellectual functioning. Second, they must have trouble living independently and finally, they must demonstrate these issues before they turn 18.
Hall’s attorney argued that Florida inappropriately uses a bright line test to determine disability, something that the makers of the IQ test never intended. The defense lawyers argue that Hall instead should be viewed as having an IQ range, one that extends from 67 to 75. Under Florida’s law those with IQ scores above 70 cannot be considered mentally disabled, something that Hall’s lawyers argues leads to cruel and unusual punishment.
Source: “Supreme Court to look at death row inmate with low IQ,” by The Associated Press, published at CBSNews.com.
Sixth Circuit Grants Writ Of Habeas Corpus In Tennessee Murder Case
A recent Sixth Circuit opinion concerned a Tennessee man, Ronald Michael Cauthern v. Roland Colson, who was convicted of murder and rape and sentenced to death for his crimes. Cauthern sought a writ of habeas corpus following his convictions, something which was denied by the district court. However, the district court did grant Cauthern the chance to appeal several claims, something that the Sixth Circuit agreed to hear.
Cauthern began by appealing his convictions based on prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance of counsel, suppression of favorable evidence and improper review of the exclusion of mitigating evidence. Though the Sixth Circuit heard his arguments on each point, the Court ultimately found two points convincing, one involving prosecutorial misconduct and another about ineffective assistance of counsel. As a result, the Sixth Circuit reversed the district court with respect to those two claims and granted Cauthern a conditional writ of habeas corpus.
Cauthern’s case concerned the rape and murder of two officers in the U.S. Army Nurse Corps, a husband and wife. Cauthern was ultimately convicted for their murder based on some pieces of evidence that linked him to the murder scene, including testimony that he had done some repair work on the couple’s Mercedes in the past. During the trial, transcripts show that the prosecutor went out of his way to impress upon the jury how evil Cauthern was. Several times the prosecutor described Cauthern as “the evil one” and mentioned the Lord’s Prayer, implying that the jury’s conviction of Cauthern was part of a moral obligation. Prosecutors also compared Cauthern to several other notorious murderers like Jeffrey Dahmer.
The Sixth Circuit disagreed with the Tennessee Supreme Court’s decision that the statements were not unfairly prejudicial. Instead, the Sixth Circuit wrote that the prosecutor’s remarks were clearly improper and that any reasonable person would conclude that a jury could be inflamed by them.
The Court said that in determining how damaging the prosecutor’s remarks were to Cauthern’s case, the question hinged on the likelihood that the remarks prejudiced the defendant such that they could no longer be confident in the jury’s sentence of death. The Sixth Circuit concluded that due to the number of abuses and the egregiousness of the prosecutor’s conduct it was clear that no reasonable person would be able to be confident in the result returned by the jury.
In its opinion, the Court’s majority wrote that based on the quantity of prosecutorial misconduct as well as the severity of that misconduct, no reasonable person could be assured that Cauthern had received a fair trial. As a result, the Court granted Cauthern’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
To read the full opinion, click here.