Today the Supreme Court, 6-2-1, declared that the "residual clause" of the Armed Career Criminal Act is unconstitutional.
The ACCA has a "three strikes" provision for violent felony priors, defined as a crime punished by over a year in prison that :
The case is Johnson v. United States, No. 13-7120. Justices Kennedy and Thomas concur in the judgment overturning Johnson's sentence by applying rather than invalidating the statute. That is, they believe the statute is constitutional but that possessing a short-barreled shotgun is not a violent felony under the statute. Justice Alito dissents.
No Glossip today. From a press coverage viewpoint, that's just as well, as the decision in a civil case will suck all the oxygen out of the room. The Court has informed the press that Monday is the last day of the term, so we will definitely have a decision then.
The ACCA has a "three strikes" provision for violent felony priors, defined as a crime punished by over a year in prison that :
(i) has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another; orWhat the heck does that last part mean? That's the problem. Criminal laws need to be more clear than that, the majority says. The rest of the law remains in force.
(ii) is burglary, arson, or extortion, involves use of explosives, or otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another
The case is Johnson v. United States, No. 13-7120. Justices Kennedy and Thomas concur in the judgment overturning Johnson's sentence by applying rather than invalidating the statute. That is, they believe the statute is constitutional but that possessing a short-barreled shotgun is not a violent felony under the statute. Justice Alito dissents.
No Glossip today. From a press coverage viewpoint, that's just as well, as the decision in a civil case will suck all the oxygen out of the room. The Court has informed the press that Monday is the last day of the term, so we will definitely have a decision then.
Does the Court's discussion of the void-for-vagueness doctrine or the rule of lenity have any applicability to any special circumstances that make a person eligible for capital punishment?
I don't think it will have an effect. The Court has been scrutinizing the eligibility circumstances for vagueness for a long time now.
Legislatures that adopted the Model Penal Code's recommendation for a circumstance of "especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel" (former §210.6(3)(h)) -- believing they were safe if they followed the "best and the brightest" of the American Law Institute -- got a rude awakening in Maynard v. Cartwright, 486 U.S. 356 (1988).
Aggravating circumstances used in the weighing process after the eligibility hurdle has been cleared get an easier time. California's §190.3 factors were upheld against a vagueness challenge in Tuilaepa v. California, 512 U.S. 967 (1994).