Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court took up once again the question of whether its decision in Miller v. Alabama, that LWOP sentences for under-18 murderers must be discretionary and not mandatory, applies retroactively to overturn sentences that were correctly decided on appeal under the law existing at the time. The previous case on this question, Toca v. Louisiana, became moot when Toca's sentence was commuted.
The new case is Montgomery v. Louisiana, No. 14-280. This case is a better vehicle than Toca, as the facts are more typical of an LWOP case. Montgomery murdered Deputy Sheriff Charles H. Hurt in 1963, when Montgomery was 17. He could have been executed in the electric chair at the time, but the jury granted him leniency.
The question presented as phrased by the petitioner/defendant is, "whether Miller adopts a new substantive rule that applies retroactively on collateral review to people condemned as juveniles to die in prison?" The Court added its own question, "Do we have jurisdiction to decide whether the Supreme Court of Louisiana correctly refused to give retroactive effect in this case to our decision in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U. S. ____ (2012)?"
Note the "die in prison" phrasing. Apparently death is no longer different.
My initial impression is that the answers are "no" and "yes." Since the parties are agreed on the jurisdictional point, the Court may appoint an amicus to argue the "no."
In other action, Court decided two civil cases today. Still waiting on the Facebook threats case, Elonis v. United States. Possibly tomorrow.
Yesterday the Court turned down the Wisconsin voter ID case, Frank v. Walker, No. 14-803.
The new case is Montgomery v. Louisiana, No. 14-280. This case is a better vehicle than Toca, as the facts are more typical of an LWOP case. Montgomery murdered Deputy Sheriff Charles H. Hurt in 1963, when Montgomery was 17. He could have been executed in the electric chair at the time, but the jury granted him leniency.
The question presented as phrased by the petitioner/defendant is, "whether Miller adopts a new substantive rule that applies retroactively on collateral review to people condemned as juveniles to die in prison?" The Court added its own question, "Do we have jurisdiction to decide whether the Supreme Court of Louisiana correctly refused to give retroactive effect in this case to our decision in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U. S. ____ (2012)?"
Note the "die in prison" phrasing. Apparently death is no longer different.
My initial impression is that the answers are "no" and "yes." Since the parties are agreed on the jurisdictional point, the Court may appoint an amicus to argue the "no."
In other action, Court decided two civil cases today. Still waiting on the Facebook threats case, Elonis v. United States. Possibly tomorrow.
Yesterday the Court turned down the Wisconsin voter ID case, Frank v. Walker, No. 14-803.
Leave a comment