DOCSLIB.ORG

No. 18-9838 CAPITAL CASE in the Supreme Court of the United States

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
No. 18-9838 CAPITAL CASE in the Supreme Court of the United States No. 18-9838 CAPITAL CASE In the Supreme Court of the United States ───────────── ───────────── CEDRIC FLOYD , Petitioner , v. STATE OF ALABAMA , Respondent . ───────────── ───────────── On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals ───────────── ───────────── BRIEF IN OPPOSITION ───────────── ───────────── STEVE MARSHALL Alabama Attorney General Edmund G. LaCour Jr. Alabama Solicitor General Beth Jackson Hughes* Assistant Attorney General OFFICE OF ALA . ATT ’Y GEN . 501 Washington Avenue Montgomery, AL 36104 (334) 242-7300 [email protected] *Counsel of Record Counsel for State of Alabama CAPITAL CASE QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Cedric Floyd was convicted of murder, and a unanimous jury found beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of aggravating factors that made him eligible for the death penalty. At the sentencing phase before the trial judge, the prosecutor commented on Floyd’s demeanor and actions during trial to argue that Floyd lacked remorse for his crime. The trial judge relied on the aggravating factors found by the jury and never mentioned the prosecutor’s comments when the judge sentenced Floyd. Did the prosecutor’s comments violate Floyd’s constitutional rights? 2. Under Alabama law, before Floyd could become eligible for the death penalty, a jury had to unanimously find beyond a reasonable doubt both that he committed murder and that an aggravating factor existed. Should this case be held in abeyance pending the resolution of Ramos v. Louisiana , which concerns whether the Constitution permits defendants to be convicted of crimes by a non-unanimous jury? ii RELATED CASES Floyd v. State , No. CR-13-0623, Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama. Judgment entered July 7, 2017. Floyd v. State , No. CR-13-0623, Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama. Judgment entered July 13, 2018. Ex parte Floyd , No. 1171092, Supreme Court of Alabama. Judgment entered February 22, 2019. Floyd v. Alabama, No. 18A1176, United States Supreme Court. Application granted May 15, 2019. iii PARTIES The caption contains the names of all parties in the courts below. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS QUESTIONS PRESENTED ......................................................................................... ii RELATED CASES ....................................................................................................... iii PARTIES ...................................................................................................................... iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................... v TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ........................................................................................ vi STATEMENT OF THE CASE ...................................................................................... 1 A. Statement of the Facts ................................................................................. 1 B. The Proceedings Below ................................................................................ 5 REASONS FOR DENYING THE PETITION ............................................................. 6 I. The Court should decline to review Floyd’s claim that his Fifth, Eight, and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated when the State argued that Floyd lacked remorse at Floyd’s judicial sentencing hearing. ................................................................................................ 7 A. Certiorari should be denied because the underlying issue is not cert-worthy. ......................................................................................................... 9 B. The trial court is presumed to understand the law, and there is no indication that the trial court failed to render an appropriate sentence ............................................................................................................. 11 II. This Court should not hold Floyd’s petition in abeyance pending the outcome of Ramos v. Louisiana . ......................................................................... 13 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................ 15 v TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Apodaca v. Oregon , 406 U.S. 404 (1972) .................................................................................................. 14 Brake v. State , 939 P.2d 1029 (Nev. 1997) ........................................................................................ 10 Burr v. Pollard , 546 F.3d 828 (7th Cir. 2008) .................................................................................... 10 Ex parte Floyd , No. 1171092 (Ala. Feb. 22, 2019). .............................................................................. 6 Ex parte Wilson , 571 So. 2d 1251 (Ala. 1990) ........................................................................................ 9 Floyd v. State , CR-13-0623, 2017 WL 2889566 (Ala. Crim. App. July 17, 2017). .................. passim Floyd v. State , CR-13-0623, 2018 WL 3407966 (Ala. Crim. App. July 13, 2018) ............................. 6 Griffin v. California , 380 U.S. 609 (1965) .................................................................................................... 9 Hall v. State , 13 S.W. 3d 115 (Tex. App. 2000) .............................................................................. 10 Harris v. Alabama , 513 U.S. 504 (1995) .............................................................................................. 7, 14 Johnson v. Louisana , 406 U.S. 356 (1972) .................................................................................................. 14 Jones v. State , 569 So. 2d 1234 (Fla. 1990) ...................................................................................... 10 Lee v. Crouse , 451 F.3d 598 (10th Cir. 2006) .................................................................................. 10 vi Lesko v. Lehman , 925 F.2d 1527 (3d Cir. 1991) .................................................................................... 10 New York City Transit Authority v. Beazer , 440 U.S. 568 (1979) .................................................................................................... 9 People v. Young , 987 P.2d 889 (Colo. Ct. App. 1999) .......................................................................... 10 Ring v. Arizona , 536 U.S. 584 (2014) .................................................................................................. 14 State v. McClure , 537 S.E. 2d 273 (S.C. 2000) ...................................................................................... 10 State v. Willey , 44 A.3d 431 (N.H. 2012) ........................................................................................... 10 Thomas v. United States , 368 F.2d 941 (5th Cir. 1966) .................................................................................... 10 United States v. Caro , 597 F.3d 608 (4th Cir. 2010) .................................................................................... 10 United States v. Kennedy , 499 F.3d 547 (6th Cir. 2007) .................................................................................... 10 United States v. Mikos , 539 F.3d 706 (7th Cir. 2008) .................................................................................... 10 United States v. Rodriguez , 959 F.2d 193 (11th Cir. 1992) .................................................................................. 10 Walton v. Arizona , 497 U.S. 639 (1990), overruled on other grounds by Ring v. Arizona , 536 U.S. 584 (2014). ................................................................................................. 12 Windsor v. State , 593 So. 2d 87 (Ala. Crim. App. 1991 .......................................................................... 9 Statutes ALA . CODE § 13A-5-40(a)(4) (1975). ............................................................................... 5 vii STATEMENT OF THE CASE A. Statement of the Facts For two years, Cedric Floyd and Tina Jones, a single mother of four, had been involved in an on-again-off-again relationship. 1 The relationship was anything but smooth. In November 2009, Floyd bumped Jones’s car when he saw her in the vehicle with another man. When she called the police, Floyd turned around and ran into the door of her car, knocked it off, and left the grill of his car at the scene. 2 A few months later, in the spring of 2010, police were called to Jones’s house because she and Floyd were arguing. After an officer convinced Floyd to leave, Jones told the officer that although she was scared of Floyd, she was afraid to have him arrested because she feared what would happen when he was released from jail. 3 In November 2010, the police were called to Jones’s home again, only to find Floyd with blood on his shirt and Jones with a busted lip. Jones explained that the two had argued, and Floyd had punched her in the mouth. While Floyd was arrested for domestic violence, Jones later dropped the charges against him. 4 Shortly thereafter, Jones finally broke up with Floyd and began dating another man. 5 Jones lived with her daughter, her two sons, her uncle, James Jones, and his fiancée, Sarah Marshall. On the night of December 31, 2010, Jones stayed at her aunt’s house because she was afraid of Floyd. 6 When James and Sarah awoke the 1. Floyd , 2017 WL 2889566, at *1; R. 2512–13. “R.” citations refer to the trial record. 2. R. 3216–17. 3. R. 3186–87. 4. R. 2818–19. 5. Floyd , 2017 WL 2889566, at *1. 6. R. 2640–41,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Alabama Office of the Attorney General Functional Analysis & Records Disposition Authority
    Alabama Office of the Attorney General Functional Analysis & Records Disposition Authority Revision Presented to the State Records Commission April 24, 2019 Table of Contents Functional and Organizational Analysis of the Alabama Office of the Attorney General .... 3 Sources of Information ................................................................................................................ 3 Historical Context ....................................................................................................................... 3 Agency Organization ................................................................................................................... 3 Agency Function and Subfunctions ............................................................................................ 4 Records Appraisal of the Alabama Office of the Attorney General ........................................ 7 Temporary Records ..................................................................................................................... 7 Permanent Records .................................................................................................................... 11 Permanent Records List ............................................................................................................ 15 Alabama Office of the Attorney General Records Disposition Authority ............................. 16 Explanation of Records Requirements ...................................................................................... 16 Records
    [Show full text]
  • Vs - CHRISTOPHER GORDY, Warden, Donaldson Correctional Facility, and CYNTHIA STEWART, Warden, Holman Correctional Facility, Respondents
    No. 19- IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES MICHAEL BRANDON SAMRA, Petitioner - vs - CHRISTOPHER GORDY, Warden, Donaldson Correctional Facility, and CYNTHIA STEWART, Warden, Holman Correctional Facility, Respondents ON PETITION FOR AN ORIGINAL WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN A CAPITAL CASE APPENDIX Volume 1 STEVEN R. SEARS ALAN M. FREEDMAN 655 Main Street Counsel of Record P.O. Box 4 CHRISTOPHER KOPACZ Montevallo, AL 35115 Midwest Center for Justice, Ltd. (205) 665-1211 P.O. Box 6528 [email protected] Evanston, IL 60204 (847) 492-1563 N. JOHN MAGRISSO (pro bono) [email protected] Attorney-At-Law 525 Florida St., Ste. 310 Baton Rouge, LA 70801 (225) 338-0235 [email protected] Counsel for Petitioner APPENDIX Appendix A Order of the Alabama Supreme Court setting execution date of May 16, 2019 (April 11, 2019) Appendix B State of Alabama’s motion to set an execution date (March 20, 2019) Appendix C Samra’s objection to the State’s motion to set an execution date (March 26, 2019) Appendix D State of Alabama’s response to Samra’s objection to the State’s motion to set an execution date (April 1, 2019) Appendix E Samra’s reply to the State’s motion to set an execution date (April 2, 2019) Appendix F Samra’s second successive state Rule 32 post-conviction petition, which raises Eighth Amendment claim (March 26, 2019) Appendix G Order of the Shelby County Circuit Court dismissing Samra’s second successive state Rule 32 post-conviction petition (April 10, 2019) Appendix H Samra’s re-filed second successive state Rule 32 post-conviction petition, which raises Eighth Amendment claim (April 29, 2019) Appendix I Samra’s motion for a stay of execution in the Alabama Supreme Court (April 29, 2019) Appendix J Samra’s motion for a stay of execution in the Shelby County Circuit Court (April 29, 2019) Appendix K Opinion of the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals affirming Samra’s conviction and sentence, Samra v.
    [Show full text]
  • The Supreme Court of Alabama—Its Cahaba Beginning, 1820–1825
    File: MEADOR EIC PUBLISH.doc Created on: 12/6/2010 1:51:00 PM Last Printed: 12/6/2010 2:53:00 PM ALABAMA LAW REVIEW Volume 61 2010 Number 5 THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA— ITS CAHABA BEGINNING, 1820–1825 ∗ Daniel J. Meador I. PROCEEDINGS IN HUNTSVILLE, 1819 ....................................... 891 II. THE FIRST SEAT OF STATE GOVERNMENT—CAHABA .................. 894 III. THE SUPREME COURT JUDGES IN THE CAHABA YEARS, 1820–1825 896 IV. THE SUPREME COURT’S BUSINESS IN THE CAHABA YEARS .......... 900 V. CONCLUSION .................................................................. 905 The Supreme Court of Alabama opened its first term on May 8, 1820 at Cahaba, the site designated as the new state’s first seat of government. The court was born then and there, but it had been conceived the previous year in Huntsville, then the territorial capital.1 I. PROCEEDINGS IN HUNTSVILLE, 1819 The movement toward statehood in the Alabama Territory, created in 1817 when Mississippi was admitted as a state, formally began in March 1819 with congressional passage of the Enabling Act. That Act authorized the people of the territory to adopt a constitution and enact laws providing for a state government. Pursuant to that Act, a convention of forty-four elected delegates from throughout the territory convened in Huntsville in July to draft a state constitution.2 Huntsville, located in the Tennessee Val- ∗ James Monroe Professor of Law Emeritus, University of Virginia; member, Alabama State Bar; dean University of Alabama Law School, 1966–1970; author of At Cahaba-From Civil War to Great Depression (Cable Publishing, 2009); President, Cahaba Foundation, Inc. 1.
    [Show full text]
  • 1969 Journal
    : II STATISTICS Miscella- Original Appellate neous Total Vumber of cases on dockets. _ __ — 15 1, 758 2, 429 4, 202 ?ases disposed of_ _ 5 1, 433 1, 971 3, 409 Remaining on dockets. __ 10 325 458 793 Cases disposed of—Appellate Docket: By written opinions 105 By per curiam opinions or orders , 206 By motion to dismiss or per stipulation (merit cases) 1 By denial or dismissal of petitions for certiorari 1,121 Cases disposed of—Miscellaneous Docket By written opinions , 0 By denial or dismissal of petitions for certiorari 1,759 By denial or withdrawal of other applications 121 By granting of other applications , 3 By per curiam dismissal of appeals 36 By other per curiam opinions or orders 22 By transfer to Appellate Docket 30 dumber of written opinions 88 Number of printed per curiam opinions 21 Number of petitions for certiorari granted ( Appellate ) 73 Number of appeals in which jurisdiction was noted or post- poned (Appellate) 46 Number of admissions to bar 3,965 GENERAL: Page Court convened October 6, 1969, and adjourned June 29, 1970 1 and 510 Court recessed to attend President's State of Union Message 211 Justice Hugo L. Black's Birthday, noted. Comments by the Chief Justice 252 Reed, J., Designated and assigned to U.S. Court of Claims. 295 : : ; in GENERAL—Continued Page Clark, J. Designated and assigned to USCA-7 424 Designated and assigned to USCA-2 424 Designated and assigned to USCA-9 , 485 Designated and assigned to U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California 485 Retirement of John F.
    [Show full text]
  • HINTON V. ALABAMA
    Cite as: 571 U. S. ____ (2014) 1 Per Curiam SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ANTHONY RAY HINTON v. ALABAMA ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF ALABAMA No. 13–6440 Decided February 24, 2014 PER CURIAM. In Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668 (1984), we held that a criminal defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel is violated if his trial attorney’s performance falls below an objective standard of reasonableness and if there is a reasonable probability that the result of the trial would have been different absent the deficient act or omission. Id., at 687–688, 694. Anthony Ray Hinton, an inmate on Alabama’s death row, asks us to decide whether the Alabama courts correctly applied Strickland to his case. We conclude that they did not and hold that Hin- ton’s trial attorney rendered constitutionally deficient performance. We vacate the lower court’s judgment and remand the case for reconsideration of whether the attor- ney’s deficient performance was prejudicial. I A In February 1985, a restaurant manager in Birming- ham was shot to death in the course of an after-hours rob- bery of his restaurant. A second manager was murdered during a very similar robbery of another restaurant in July. Then, later in July, a restaurant manager named Smotherman survived another similar robbery-shooting. During each crime, the robber fired two .38 caliber bullets; all six bullets were recovered by police investigators. Smotherman described his assailant to the police, and when the police showed him a photographic array, he picked out Hinton’s picture.
    [Show full text]
  • For State Courts
    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. • I) 131 ~/1 .' ~ DESCRI PTr ON OF DEFENSE SERVI CES HI ~ IrJE STATES S-yp.p·l:£MENf,=A-TO': IMPLEMENTATION OF I\RGERSINGER VI HAMLIN:- '\ • HI _"-A PRESCRI PTIVE PROGRAM PACKAGE ~ " National Center for State Courts Edward B. McConnell, Director Arne L.. Schoeller, Associate Director 1660 LINCOLN STREET, SUITE 200, DENVER, COLORADO 80203 NATIONAL CENTER FOR STATE COURTS Officers President Louis H. Burke, Associate Justice Supreme Court of California DESCRIPTION OF DEFENSE SERVICES IN NINE STATES Vice President James A. Finch, Jr., Justice Supreme Court of Missouri SUPPLEMENT A TO: Secretary­ Ali:e L. O'Donnell, Federal Judicial Center Treasurer Washington, D.C. IMPLEMENTATION OF ARGERSINGER V. HAMLIN: Assistant Secre­ Don F. Bell, National Center for State Courts tary Treasurer Denver, Colorado A PRESCRIPTIVE PROGRAM PACKAGE Chairman, C. A. Carson III, Esq., Phoenix, Arizona Advisory Council Board of Directors Study Prepared by: Lindsay G. Arthur, Judge, District Court, Juvenile Division Minneapolis, Minnesota Nancy B. Elkind, Center Staff David B'rofman, Judge, Probate Court of Denver, Colorado Milo L. Colton, Center Staff Louis H. Burke, Associate Justice, Supreme Court of California Francis L. Bremson, Consultant James A. Finch, Jr., Justice, Supreme Court of Missouri M. Michael Gordon, Judge, Municipal Court of Houston, Texas Howell T. Heflin, Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Alabama D. Donald Jamieson, President Judge, Court of Common Pleas Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Publication No. R0009 April 1974 Edward E. Pringle, Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Colorado Supplement A John T. Reardon, Chief Judge, Eighth Judicial Circuit of Illinois Paul C.
    [Show full text]
  • IN the SUPREME COURT of ALABAMA July 7, 2021
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA July 7, 2021 IN RE: COVID-19 PANDEMIC EMERGENCY RESPONSE ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 11: Revoking Previous Administrative Orders Related to COVID-19 Pandemic Emergency Response ORDER This Court, having fully considered Governor Kay Ivey’s Proclamation issued on May 3, 2021, extending the state of emergency related to the COVID-19 pandemic initially proclaimed on March 13, 2020, by an additional sixty days from May 7, 2021, until July 6, 2021; and This Court, having fully considered that the state of emergency for the State of Alabama officially has ended, IT IS ORDERED that the state of emergency for the Judicial Branch of the State of Alabama officially ends effective at 5:00 P.M. today. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all previous administrative orders issued by this Court related to the COVID-19 pandemic are hereby REVOKED, except for Administrative Order No. 10 issued on April 28, 2021, which extended provisions pertaining to settlements in workers’ compensation cases until July 29, 2021, or further order of this Court. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA July 7, 2021 Parker, C.J., and Bolin, Shaw, Wise, Bryan, Sellers, Mendheim, Stewart, and Mitchell, JJ., concur. Witness my hand this 7th day of July, 2021. Clerk of Court, Supreme Court of Alabama FILED July 7, 2021 5:30 PM Clerk Supreme Court of Alabama cc: Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Alabama Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of Alabama Clerk of the Supreme Court of Alabama Alabama Court of Civil Appeals Clerk of the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals Clerk of Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals Technology Division of the Supreme Court of Alabama Marshal of the Alabama Appellate Courts Alabama State Law Library Alabama Administrative Director of Courts Executive Director of the Alabama State Bar General Counsel of the Alabama State Bar Minutes of the Supreme Court of Alabama File .
    [Show full text]
  • IN SULLIVAN's SHADOW: the USE and ABUSE of LIBEL LAW DURING the CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT a Dissertation Presented to the Facult
    IN SULLIVAN’S SHADOW: THE USE AND ABUSE OF LIBEL LAW DURING THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT A Dissertation presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School at the University of Missouri In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy by AIMEE EDMONDSON Dr. Earnest L. Perry Jr., Dissertation Supervisor DECEMBER 2008 The undersigned, appointed by the dean of the Graduate School, have examined the dissertation entitled: IN SULLIVAN’S SHADOW: THE USE AND ABUSE OF LIBEL LAW DURING THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT presented by Aimee Edmondson, a candidate for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy and hereby certify that, in their opinion, it is worthy of acceptance. ________________________________ Associate Professor Earnest L. Perry Jr. ________________________________ Professor Richard C. Reuben ________________________________ Associate Professor Carol Anderson ________________________________ Associate Professor Charles N. Davis ________________________________ Assistant Professor Yong Volz In loving memory of my father, Ned Edmondson ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS It would be impossible to thank everyone responsible for this work, but special thanks should go to Dr. Earnest L. Perry, Jr., who introduced me to a new world and helped me explore it. I could not have asked for a better mentor. I also must acknowledge Dr. Carol Anderson, whose enthusiasm for the work encouraged and inspired me. Her humor and insight made the journey much more fun and meaningful. Thanks also should be extended to Dr. Charles N. Davis, who helped guide me through my graduate program and make this work what it is. To Professor Richard C. Reuben, special thanks for adding tremendous wisdom to the project. Also, much appreciation to Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • State Courts
    s 985 . , I In the heart of the Bluegrass State, thoroughbred horses in rolling, . , white-fenced pastures, graze near . Lexington. Kentucky-bred racehorses are world-famous. fllusmm~onsbyPam Vat, public infmticn rupenriror for the Kentucky Adminismarice Office ofthe Coum 1985 Annual Meeting Library Notional Center for State Cdrts 30) Newport Ave. Wi!;*c:r.:iura-. \'A 231 s5 Lexington, Kentucky The Kentucky Judicial System The Commonwealth of Kentucky has a unified court system, instituted in 1976 after voters approved a new judicial article for the state’s 183-year-old constitution. Full imple- mentation of the system took effect in 1978, providing a four-tiered court of justice consist- ing of the supreme court, the court of appeals, the circuit court, and the district court. Kentucky’s supreme court is located in Frankfort, the state capital. The supreme court has appellate jurisdiction only, except that it has the power to issue all writs necessary in aid of its appellate jurisdiction, or the complete determination of any cause, or as may be re- quired to exercise control over the entire court of justice. Appeals from a circuit court judgment imposing a sentence of death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment for 20 years or more are taken directly to the supreme court. Decisions of the court of appeals may be ap- pealed to the supreme court if granted a discretionary review as prescribed by rule of court. A cause may be transferred from the court of appeals to the supreme court when the case is of great and immediate public importance. The supreme court establishes rules of practice and procedure for the entire court of justice, for the conduct of judges, and for procedures to be followed by all state court officials.
    [Show full text]
  • In the Court of the Judiciary in the Matter of Roy S
    IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIARY IN THE MATTER OF ) ) ROY S. MOORE, ) Chief Justice of the ) Supreme Court of Alabama ) ) Court of the Judiciary ) Case No. 46 ANSWER AND DEFENSES OF CHIEF JUSTICE ROY S. MOORE Chief Justice Roy S. Moore, for his Answer and Defenses to the Complaint of the Judicial Inquiry Commission ("JIC") dated May 6, 2016, states as follows: 1. Chief Justice Moore admits the allegations in paragraph 1 of the JIC's Complaint, but states that they are immaterial and not pertinent to the instant case and as such should be strickeh. 2. Chief Justice Moore admits the allegations in paragraph 2 of the JIC's Complaint. 3. Chief Justice Moore denies the allegations in paragraph 3 of the JIC's Complaint. 4. Chief Justice Moore admits the allegations in paragraph 4 of the JIC's Complaint. 5. In response to paragraph 5 of the JIC's Complaint, Chief Justice Moore denies that the JIC has correctly and completely quoted all relevant portions of the cited document. Chief Justice, Moore further denies the JIC's implication that Alabama was a party to the cited case. The cited document speaks for itself. 6. Chief Justice Moore denies the allegations in paragraph 6 of the JIC’s Complaint. 7. In response to paragraph 7 of the JIC’s Complaint, Chief Justice Moore admits that he took an oath to support the United States Constitution in conformity with Article VI, § 2 of that document. 8. In response to paragraph 8 of the JIC’s Complaint, Chief Justice Moore admits the existence of the cited cases but denies that the JIC has correctly and completely identified all relevant portions of those cases.
    [Show full text]
  • No. 1181051 in the SUPREME COURT of ALABAMA ______
    E-Filed 07/17/2020 08:35:57 AM Honorable Julia Jordan Weller Clerk of the Court No. 1181051 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA _______________ Mark Stiff, et al. Appellants, v. Equivest Financial, LLC, Appellee. _______________ On Appeal from the Tenth Judicial Circuit Court of Alabama Jefferson County, Birmingham Division Case No. CV-2018-900776 ___________________________ Brief of Amicus Curiae National Tax Lien Association, Inc. in Support of Appellee’s Application for Rehearing ___________________________ Gregory M. Taube Megan Ware-Fitzgerald Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP Atlantic Station 201 17th Street NW Suite 1700 Atlanta, GA 30363 404-322-6000 Attorneys for the National Tax Lien Association, Inc. Table of Contents Table of Authorities ..................................... ii Argument .................................................. 1 I. The Court misinterprets Ala. Code § 40-10-15 by applying a literal approach and ignoring the section’s history and remaining language. ............. 1 A. History confirms that Section 40-10-15 is intended to promote a competitive auction, not one literally conducted in public. ............... 2 B. A publicly advertised tax sale auction inside the courthouse is conducted at “public outcry.” ......................................... 4 II. The Court’s mistaken interpretation of the statute will undermine the benefits provided by the tax sale and cause unnecessary litigation at the County’s expense. ..................................... 7 III. The Court should reconsider its categorical rule declaring large numbers of tax sales to be void. ..... 12 Conclusion ............................................... 15 Certificate of Service ................................... 16 i Table of Authorities Page(s) Cases Ex parte Found. Bank, 146 So. 3d 1 (Ala. 2013) ............ 2 Ex parte Milne, No. 1190397, 2020 WL 2097552 (Ala. May 1, 2020) (Parker, C.J., concurring specially) .............................................
    [Show full text]
  • Alabama NAACP V Alabama.DCT Opinion
    Case 2:16-cv-00731-WKW-SMD Document 181 Filed 02/05/20 Page 1 of 210 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION ALABAMA STATE CONFERENCE ) OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION ) FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF ) COLORED PEOPLE, SHERMAN ) NORFLEET, CLARENCE ) MUHAMMAD, CURTIS TRAVIS, ) and JOHN HARRIS, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) CASE NO. 2:16-CV-731-WKW ) [WO] STATE OF ALABAMA and JOHN H. ) MERRILL, in his official capacity as ) Alabama Secretary of State, ) ) Defendants. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION — 4 II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE —10 III. BACKGROUND — 11 IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR BENCH TRIALS —19 V. DISCUSSION — 20 A. Section 2 Vote Dilution — 20 1. Section 2: The Statute — 20 Case 2:16-cv-00731-WKW-SMD Document 181 Filed 02/05/20 Page 2 of 210 2. Burden of Proof — 21 3. The Meaning of Section 2 — 23 a. Legislative History — 23 b. Gingles Preconditions and Totality-of-Circumstances Test — 25 4. Section 2 and At-Large Judicial Elections — 29 a. Nipper v. Smith and Later Eleventh Circuit Caselaw Developments — 35 i. The Importance of a State’s Interests — 36 ii. Nipper’s Applicability to Appellate Judicial Elections — 40 iii. The Role of Causation in the § 2 Vote Dilution Analysis — 41 b. Summary — 44 5. Analysis of the Gingles Preconditions — 45 a. Introduction — 45 b. The First Gingles Precondition — 46 i. The Inextricably Intertwined Nature of Liability and Remedy in the Eleventh Circuit — 47 ii. Factors Governing the First Gingles Precondition — 48 iii. Plaintiffs’ Illustrative Plans for Alabama’s Appellate Courts — 54 iv.
    [Show full text]