The U.S. Supreme Court issued two criminal law decisions this week, neither of which is surprising or particularly controversial.
Monday, the Court decided Welch v. United States, No. 15-6418:
Today, the Court decided Molina-Martinez v. United States, No. 14-8913, regarding what to do on appeal when the trial court messes up on the often complex Federal Sentencing Guidelines and nobody notices until the appeal. The Court disapproved the Fifth Circuit's requirement that the defendant "must identify 'additional evidence' to show that the use of the incorrect Guidelines range did in fact affect his sentence."
Monday, the Court decided Welch v. United States, No. 15-6418:
Last Term, this Court decided Johnson v. United States, 576 U. S. ___ (2015). Johnson considered the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984, 18 U. S. C. ยง924(e)(2)(B)(ii). The Court held that provision void for vagueness. The present case asks whether Johnson is a substantive decision that is retroactive in cases on collateral review.Answer: Yes.
Today, the Court decided Molina-Martinez v. United States, No. 14-8913, regarding what to do on appeal when the trial court messes up on the often complex Federal Sentencing Guidelines and nobody notices until the appeal. The Court disapproved the Fifth Circuit's requirement that the defendant "must identify 'additional evidence' to show that the use of the incorrect Guidelines range did in fact affect his sentence."
Neither case was hard. Unconstitutionality of the underlying statute has been the core exception to Teague's general rule of nonretroactivity on habeas ever since Justice Harlan fleshed out his theory in 1971, 18 years before the Supreme Court adopted it in Teague. In Welch, the Solicitor General agreed that the defendant was right, so the Court appointed Helgi Walker as amicus curiae to make an argument in defense of the lower court's judgment. She made a creative argument, and the opinion notes, "She has ably discharged her responsibilities." However, the effort was unsuccessful, as the efforts of appointed amici in these circumstances almost always are.
In Molina-Martinez, there is a rule that governs the situation, the "plain error" rule of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52, and it states that a defendant must establish that the error "affect[ed] substantial rights" to revive a defaulted objection. The high court generally takes a dim view of court of appeals precedents that add additional elements beyond those in the rules, and it is no surprise to see this one fall.
In Molina-Martinez, there is a rule that governs the situation, the "plain error" rule of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52, and it states that a defendant must establish that the error "affect[ed] substantial rights" to revive a defaulted objection. The high court generally takes a dim view of court of appeals precedents that add additional elements beyond those in the rules, and it is no surprise to see this one fall.
Leave a comment