DOCSLIB.ORG

Jones Final Brief

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Jones Final Brief IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA MICHAEL NAVARRO JONES, ) ) Sup. Court No. 18-0745 Applicant/Appellant, ) ) VS. ) Black Hawk PCCV133701 ) STATE OF IOWA, ) ) Respondent/Appellee. ) ON APPEAL FROM THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR BLACKHAWK COUNTY HONORABLE GEORGE L. STIGLER, JUDGE PRESIDING APPELLANT’S FINAL BRIEF Nate Nieman Attorney at Law 329 18th St. Rock Island, IL 61201 Telephone: (309) 623-4831 Fax: (309) 517-5843 Email: [email protected] AT0012958 ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DEC 11, 2018 CLERK OF SUPREME COURT CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND FILING I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court for the Supreme Court of Iowa using the EDMS system on December 11, 2018. I further certify that I served this Final Brief through EDMS to the following counsel of record: Attorney General Criminal Appeals Division 1305 E. Walnut Hoover Building Des Moines, IA 50319 I further certify that I have served this Final Brief by mailing one copy to Applicant-Appellant Michael Jones to his last known address. ___/s/ Nate Nieman______ Nate Nieman ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Certificate of Service and Filing………………………………………..2 Table of Contents…………………………………………………………2 Table of Authorities………………………………………………………4 Issues presented for review……………………………………………..6 Routing Statement……………………………………………………….6 Statement of the Case……………………………………………………6 Statement of Relevant Facts……………………………………………8 Argument………………………………………………………………...10 I. THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED BY DISMISSING JONES’ APPLICATION FOR POST-CONVICTION RELIEF ON GROUNDS THAT IT WAS BARRED BY THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. (1) Preservation of Error…………………………………10 (2) Standard of Review……………………………………11 (3) Argument on the merits……………………………...12 II. STATE v. PLAIN SHOULD BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY. (1) Preservation of Error…………………………………34 (2) Standard of Review……………………………………34 (3) Argument on the merits……………………………...35 3 Conclusion………………………………………………………………..45 Oral Argument…………………………………………………………..46 Attorney’s Cost Certificate…………………………………………….46 Certificate of Compliance………………………………………………46 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES: United States Supreme Court Arizona v. Fulminante, 499 U.S. 279 (1991)………………………..41 Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986)……………………………...42 Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (1993)………………………...41 Cassell v. Texas, 339 U.S. 282 (1950)………………………………...42 Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357 (1979)……………………………...42 Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963)…………………………40 J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B., 511 U.S. 127 (1994)……………….42 Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 (1997)……………………..40 McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168 (1984)…………………………..41 Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999)……………………….40,41 Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570 (1986)……………………………………41 Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275 (1993)…………………………41 Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522 (1975)………………………..42,43 Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989)…………………………...Passim Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 (1927)………………………………41,43 Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U.S. 254 (1986)………………………….41,42 Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (1984)………………………………..41 Iowa Supreme Court Cases Barnes v. State, 611 N.W.2d 290 (Iowa 2000)………………………12 Crall v. Davis, 714 N.W.2d 616 (Iowa 2006)…………………….15,18 Giles v. State, 511 N.W.2d 622 (Iowa 1994)…………………………35 4 Goosman v. State, 764 N.W.2d 539 (Iowa 2009)…………….20,35,36 Harrington v. State, 659 N.W.2d 509 (Iowa 2003)……………..12,35 Hawkeye Foodservice Distribution, Inc. v. Iowa Educators Corp., 812 N.W.2d 600 (Iowa 2012)…………………………………………..16 Herbst v. Treinen, 88 N.W.2d 820 (1958)……………………………16 Hines v. State, 288 N.W.2d 344 (Iowa 1980)…………………….26,30 Jensen v. Sattler ̧696 N.W.2d 582 (Iowa 2005)……………………..11 Lamasters v. State, 821 N.W.2d 856 (Iowa 2012)………………11,34 Manning v. State, 654 N.W.2d 555 (Iowa 2002)………...26,30,31,32 Morgan v. State, 469 N.W.2d 419 (Iowa 1991)……………………..36 Nguyen v. State, 829 N.W.2d 183 (Iowa 2013)………………..Passim Nguyen v. State, 878 N.W.2d 744 (Iowa 2016)……………………...36 Perez v. State, 816 N.W.2d 354 (Iowa 2012)…………………..Passim Rieff v. Evans, 630 N.W.2d 278 (Iowa 2001)………………...12,16,17 State v. Anderson, 517 N.W.2d 208 (Iowa 1994)……………………21 State v. Beeman, 315 N.W.2d 770 (Iowa 1982)……………………..21 State v. Heemstra, 721 N.W.2d 549 (2006)………………………….19 State v. Jones, 490 N.W.2d 787 (Iowa 1992)………………………..24 State v. Mayberry, 411 N.W.2d 677 (Iowa 1987)…………………...21 State v. McCright, 569 N.W.2d 605 (Iowa 1997)………………..11,34 State v. Ragland, 420 N.W.2d 791 (Iowa 1988)…………………21,36 State v. Rhomberg, 516 N.W.2d 803 (Iowa 1994)…………………..21 State v. Willard, 756 N.W.2d 207 (Iowa 2008)……………………..33 U.S. Bank v. Barbour, 770 N.W.2d 350 (Iowa 2009)……………...16 Wilson v. Ribbens, 678 N.W.2d 417 (Iowa 2004)…………………...15 STATUTES AND RULES: Iowa Code § 822.3…………………………………………………...14,20 Iowa Code § 822.6……………………………………………………….26 FOREIGN CASES: Gray v. State, 133 S.W.3d 281 (Tex. App. 2004)……………………42 5 ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW I. WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED BY DISMISSING JONES’ APPLICATION FOR POST- CONVICTION RELIEF ON GROUNDS THAT IT WAS BARRED BY THE STATE OF LIMITATIONS. II. WHETHER STATE v. PLAIN SHOULD BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY. ROUTING STATEMENT This appeal could be transferred to the Iowa Court of Appeals as it involves an issue of the application of existing legal principles. I.R.App.P. 6.1101(3)(a). However, this case could also be retained by the Iowa Supreme Court because it involves an issue of first impression (whether State v. Plain, 898 N.W.2d 801 (Iowa 2017) should be applied retroactively), the resolution of which involves a substantial question of enunciating or changing legal principles. I.R.App.P. 6.1101(2)(c) and (f). STATEMENT OF THE CASE Applicant Michael Jones (“Jones”) filed a pro se Application for Post-Conviction Relief Pursuant to Iowa Code Section 822 (“Pro se Application”) on December 11, 2017. (A. 5-9). Attorney Robert Stone (“Stone”) was appointed to represent Jones on 6 December 20, 2017. Order, December 20, 2017, p. 1. The State filed a Motion to Dismiss Application for Post-Conviction Relief (“State’s Motion to Dismiss”) on February 28, 2018. (A. 10-11). The court entered an order scheduling a hearing on the State’s Motion to Dismiss on March 6, 2018. Order, March 6, 2018, pg. 1. Jones, by counsel, filed a First Amended Application for Post-Conviction Relief Pursuant to Iowa Code Chapter 822 (“First Amended Application”) on March 16, 2018. (A. 27-30). Jones, by counsel, also filed a Resistance to Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss Application (“Resistance”) on March 9, 2018, (A. 19-21), supported by a “Brief in Support of his Resistance to Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss Application” (“Brief in Support of Resistance”) filed on the same date. (A. 22-26). On April 16, 2018, a hearing was held on the State’s Motion to Dismiss, (A. 31), which was granted following arguments of the parties. (See A. 36). A written order granting the State’s Motion to Dismiss was entered on the same date. (A. 38). Timely notice of appeal was filed on April 27, 2018. (A. 39-40). 7 STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS The procedural history of this case is succinct, and for the purposes of this appeal, is appropriately detailed in the above Statement of the Case. However, the hearing on the State’s Motion to Dismiss warrants further discussion, as it relates to the issues raised here on appeal. A hearing was held on the State’s Motion to Dismiss on April 16, 2018. (A. 31). Jones was present and represented by his attorney, Ben Stone. (A. 32). After identifying the parties, and before any argument was made, the court stated, “Mr. Stone, what this comes down to is basically you want the Plain case to be made retroactive. What law is there that it should be made retroactive?” (A. 32). Stone replied that “…for the purpose of the hearing today… that the determination of whether or not it’s retroactive would be something that is determined later than today, the motion to dismiss.” (A. 32). Stone further argued that “the preference of Mr. Jones would be that the decision would be based upon whether or not there is a valid claim and that that would be based upon the 8 simple analysis that the Plain decision is clearly new law. The language in the decision is quite clear that this is overturning decades of prior law and that the determination of whether or not that is a retroactive application would be something for a later hearing.” (A. 32-33). The State argued that “the three-year time bar absolutely applies” and that “This is not a 22.11(d) new ground of law or fact case.” (A. 33). The State further argued that Plain was not retroactive and that the decision was not a new ground of law or fact. (A. 33). Stone responded that “It’s very clear that the decision of the Iowa Supreme Court in June of last year in the Plain decision represents a new law. It’s a new law. We do not know yet whether or not it will be applied retroactively, but again we believe that.” (A. 35). The court responded that “I disagree with you on that because if it were a factual matter, you would be entitled to hearing to dispute that. This is strictly a matter of legal interpretation. I don't see anything in the Plain decision that would treat it any different than Heemstra which is to say it's a declaration of a new standard of law to be applied prospectively 9 and not retrospectively because if we applied this that way, the flood gates would be unleashed like you could not believe.” (A.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • IS LESS Philip Hamburger† I. FREE EXERCISE
    HAMBURGER.BOOK.DOC 4/13/04 9:44 PM ESSAY MORE IS LESS∗ Philip Hamburger† I. FREE EXERCISE INALIENABLE .................................................... 838 A. The Inalienable Character of Religious Liberty ................. 839 B. The Definition of Religious Liberty..................................... 848 II. BOTH MORE AND LESS ................................................................. 858 A. The Contingency of Free Exercise in the Courts ................ 858 B. Mere Definition Rather than Condition? ............................ 861 C. Historical Explanations......................................................... 864 D. Expansion and Contingency................................................. 869 E. The Absolute Right of Religious Belief ............................... 872 F. Fratricide (or the Periphery Undermines the Core) ........... 874 G. No Harm, No Foul? .............................................................. 882 H. Other Examples..................................................................... 885 CONCLUSION....................................................................................... 890 S the First Amendment’s right of free exercise of religion condi- I tional upon government interests? Many eighteenth-century Americans said it was utterly unconditional. For example, James Madison and numerous contemporaries declared in 1785 that “the right of every man to exercise [‘Religion’] . is in its nature an un- alienable right” and “therefore that in matters of Religion, no mans right is abridged by
    [Show full text]
  • Equal Protection Clause -- Exclusion of a Class from Jury Service Charles Kivett
    NORTH CAROLINA LAW REVIEW Volume 33 | Number 2 Article 8 2-1-1955 Constitutional Law -- Equal Protection Clause -- Exclusion of a Class from Jury Service Charles Kivett Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/nclr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Charles Kivett, Constitutional Law -- Equal Protection Clause -- Exclusion of a Class from Jury Service, 33 N.C. L. Rev. 262 (1955). Available at: http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/nclr/vol33/iss2/8 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in North Carolina Law Review by an authorized editor of Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NORTH CAROLINA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 33 state corporation receives the same benefits and protection as intra- state vendors.20 If such an analysis is correct, the decision should have little prac- tical effect upon the present administration and collection of use taxes,21 because the way will have been left open to impose tax collecting obli- gations on foreign corporations which make deliveries into a taxing state after encroaching upon its markets by inducing (e.g., by direct advertising, mail and telephone solicitation, etc.) its customers to cross the state line for tax-saving purposes. On the other hand, if this decision means that such corporations may now escape liability, its effect will no doubt be to increase the number of merchants seeking to capitalize on the sales tax of neighboring states at the expense of the local market, thereby further increasing the difficulties of adminis- tration and collection of the use tax.
    [Show full text]
  • State Regulation and the Dormant Commerce Clause. Daniel A
    University of Minnesota Law School Scholarship Repository Constitutional Commentary 1986 State Regulation and the Dormant Commerce Clause. Daniel A. Farber Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/concomm Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Farber, Daniel A., "State Regulation and the Dormant Commerce Clause." (1986). Constitutional Commentary. 173. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/concomm/173 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Minnesota Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Constitutional Commentary collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. STATE REGULATION AND THE DORMANT COMMERCE CLAUSE Daniel A. Farber* The commerce clause empowers Congress to "regulate Com­ merce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."I Although it speaks only of congressional power, the clause has been interpreted to empower the federal courts to enjoin state laws that interfere unduly with interstate commerce.z Since the Marshall Court, the Supreme Court has continually modified its definition of the judicial role in overseeing state regula­ tion.3 The Court's current view of the so-called "dormant" com­ merce clause, in a nutshell, is as follows.4 State regulations having a discriminatory effect on interstate commerce are subject to stringent judicial scrutiny even if the discrimination was inadvertent.S On the other hand, regulations that burden interstate commerce without discriminating against it are subject to a less rigorous balancing test:6 a state law that burdens local and interstate commerce equally will be upheld if the law's local benefits outweigh the burden * Professor of Law, University of Minnesota.
    [Show full text]
  • Jurisdiction Stripping Circa 2020: What the Dialogue (Still) Has to Teach Us
    MONAGHAN IN PRINTER FINAL (DO NOT DELETE) 9/16/2019 3:03 PM Duke Law Journal VOLUME 69 OCTOBER 2019 NUMBER 1 JURISDICTION STRIPPING CIRCA 2020: WHAT THE DIALOGUE (STILL) HAS TO TEACH US HENRY P. MONAGHAN† ABSTRACT Since its publication in 1953, Henry Hart’s famous article, The Power of Congress to Limit the Jurisdiction of Federal Courts: An Exercise in Dialectic, subsequently referred to as simply “The Dialogue,” has served as the leading scholarly treatment of congressional control over the federal courts. Now in its seventh decade, much has changed since Hart first wrote. This Article examines what lessons The Dialogue still holds for its readers circa 2020. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ................................................................................................2 A. 1953 and Beyond ......................................................................2 B. The Dialogue: A Preliminary Look ........................................5 I. The Essential Role of the Supreme Court ........................................10 A. Hart and the Court’s Essential Role....................................10 B. The Critical Responses and the Apparently Dominant View.........................................................................................13 C. Textual and Other Ambiguities ............................................16 D. The Supreme Court, Limited Government, and the Rule of Law...........................................................................................21 E. Purpose and Jurisdiction-Stripping ......................................27
    [Show full text]
  • Appellant's Brief in Support of Appeal of Dismissal
    20140194 FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF SUPREME COURT JUNE 25, 2014 STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA Paul J. Sorum ) Petitioner and Appellant ) SUPREME COURT vs. ) No. 20140194 Jack Dalrymple, Governor of North Dakota ) Drew Wrigley, Lt. Governor of North Dakota ) Ryan Taylor, 2012 Dem. Candidate for Governor of ND ) Ellen Chaffee, 2012 Dem. Candidate for Lt. Gov. of ND ) Al Jaeger, North Dakota Secretary of State ) Respondents and Appellees ) (Ref. Burleigh County CASE NO. 08-2014-CV-0173) APPELLANT'S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL OF DISMISSAL Brief By: Paul J. Sorum, Petitioner/Appellant 3501 Calypso Dr, Bismarck, North Dakota 58504 Phone: 701-219-5601 I Table of Contents Section Paragraph Nature and Facts of Case and Proceedings ............................................... 1 Legal Argument ......................................................................................... 18 Discrimination is Severe and Pervasive ................................................... 51 Relief Requested ......................................................................................... 65 II TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASE LAW Citation Paragraph Ableman v. Booth, 62 US 506 - Supreme Court 1859 ..................................................... 14 Francis v. Francis, 2014 ND 111 - ND: Supreme Court 2014 ........................................ 28 Gullickson v. Kline, 2004 ND 76, ¶ 16, 678 N.W.2d 138 ................................................ 28 Holcomb v. Iona College, 521 F. 3d 130 - Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit 2008 ........... 51 James Valley Grain v. David, 2011 ND 160, 802 N.W.2d 158 ...................................... 1(3) Kiner v. Well, 71 N.W.2d 743, 750-51 (N.D. 1955) ..................... 21, 22, 23, 24, 47, 48, 49 North Dakota Attorney General Opinion 2012-L-07................................... 3, 6, 23, 26, 48 Parr v. Woodmen, 791 F. 2d 888 - Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit 1986 .................. 54, 55 Planned Parenthood v.
    [Show full text]
  • Fourteenth Amendment
    FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS GUARANTEED PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENSHIP, DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION CONTENTS Page Section 1. Rights Guaranteed ................................................................................................... 1671 The Fourteenth Amendment and States’ Rights ............................................................. 1671 Citizens of the United States ............................................................................................ 1671 Privileges or Immunities .................................................................................................... 1674 Due Process of Law ............................................................................................................ 1678 Generally ...................................................................................................................... 1678 Definitions .................................................................................................................... 1679 ‘‘Person’’ ................................................................................................................. 1679 ‘‘Property’’ and Police Power ............................................................................... 1681 ‘‘Liberty’’ ................................................................................................................ 1682 The Rise and Fall of Economic Substantive Due Process: Overview ...................... 1682 Regulation of Labor Conditions .................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court of the United States
    No. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES JOHN SMITH PETITIONER vs. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS RESPONDENT ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO ELEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI John Smith, DC # 749343 Zephyrhills Correctional Institution 2739 Gall Boulevard Zephyrhills, Fl 33541-9701 Petitioner, Pro Se pOVDE0 ~jy ILL CA. 4 20 zep OCT 2 QUESTION PRESENTED Petitioner, John Smith tenders this question, which should be agreed upon to hear, and decide: Does treating a dismissed appeal of a mentally incompetent prisoner's case, who in good faith, untimely filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, constitute a denied right under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, United States Constitution if appeal is not reinstated once the deficiency is corrected. LIST OF PARTIES [X] All parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. [ ] All parties do not appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. A list of all parties to the proceeding in the court whose judgment is the subject of this petition is as follows: 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES . 4 OPINIONSBELOW .......................................................................................................... 5 JURISDICTION................................................................................................................6 CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED .........................7 STATEMENTOF THE CASE ...........................................................................................8
    [Show full text]
  • 14Th Amendment US Constitution
    FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS GUARANTEED PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENSHIP, DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION CONTENTS Page Section 1. Rights Guaranteed ................................................................................................... 1565 Citizens of the United States ............................................................................................ 1565 Privileges and Immunities ................................................................................................. 1568 Due Process of Law ............................................................................................................ 1572 The Development of Substantive Due Process .......................................................... 1572 ``Persons'' Defined ................................................................................................. 1578 Police Power Defined and Limited ...................................................................... 1579 ``Liberty'' ................................................................................................................ 1581 Liberty of Contract ...................................................................................................... 1581 Regulatory Labor Laws Generally ...................................................................... 1581 Laws Regulating Hours of Labor ........................................................................ 1586 Laws Regulating Labor in Mines .......................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Border Protection Clause in Constitution
    Border Protection Clause In Constitution Tryptic and automatic Hiro budging while unlamented Davin dissatisfy her surmounters emotionally and recommend half-and-half. George remains seeing after Raynard nett clinically or augur any strop. Foodless Jedediah still get-togethers: flighty and liberatory Red quantify quite this but splotch her destroyers disquietingly. The legislature shall walk by law, in what manner, and substance what courts, suits may be doing against free state. The border in protecting your travel purposes with freedom of judge stewart dissenting opinion of border checkpoint freely accessible recreational development of representatives ﬕnd necessary for preventing illegal. A nice over immigration is the Migration and Importation Clause. COVID-19 Control and Prevention Border Protection and. United states constitution? The clam to Travel US Constitution Annotated US Law LII. As in border exception or compelling government clause. To border in protected by constitution? The Praetorians An Analysis of US Border Patrol Checkpoints. That brass is accessible to axe who accesses the device. Tax in constitutional protections at stake once again. Amendment or impairing or altering any covenants or agreements of affect State which made hereunder, or thick the effect of withdrawing the proceeds of bill Gross Receipts Taxes from the operation of this Amendment. Operation Gatekeeper resulted in significant increases in the manpower and other resources deployed to San Diego sector. For defeat, the Fourth Amendment allows law enforcement officials to search people or keep property by those people voluntarily consent bond the search. The missing is your rights aren't particularly well defined. THE TRUMP MEMOS American Civil Liberties Union.
    [Show full text]
  • Constitutional Law--Criminal Procedure--Double Jeopardy Held
    St. John's Law Review Volume 44 Number 2 Volume 44, October 1969, Number 2 Article 8 Constitutional Law--Criminal Procedure--Double Jeopardy Held No Bar to Imposition of Harsher Penalty Upon Retrial--Due Process Mandates Credit for Time Previously Served (North Carolina v. Pearce, U.S. 1969) St. John's Law Review Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/lawreview This Recent Development in New York Law is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in St. John's Law Review by an authorized editor of St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. RECENT DEVELOPMENTS CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - DOUBLE JEOP- ARDY HELD No BAR To IMPOSITION OF HARSHER PENALTY UPON RE-TRIAL - DUE PROCESS MANDATES CREDIT FOR TIME PREVIOUSLY SERVED. -North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 (1969). Respondent Pearce was convicted of assault with intent to commit rape and sentenced to a term of 12 to 15 years in prison. Upon seek- ing post-conviction relief, he was awarded a new trial at which he was again convicted and sentenced to an 8 year prison term which, when complemented by the time previously served, amounted to a greater penalty than that originally imposed. Similarly, respondent Rice pleaded guilty to four counts of second degree burglary, and was sentenced to prison for an aggregate term of 10 years for all 4 counts. These judgments were later set aside; respondent was retried on 3 of the original counts, convicted and sentenced to prison for a total of 25 years without compensation for time already served.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Equal Protection No Longer Protects: the Evolving Forms of Status-Enforcing State Action Reva Siegel*
    Why Equal Protection No Longer Protects: The Evolving Forms of Status-Enforcing State Action Reva Siegel* In this essay, ProfessorSiegel examines efforts to reform racialand gender status law in the nineteenth century in order to raise questions about the ways antidiscriminationlaw operates today. The essay demonstrates how efforts to dismantle an entrenched system of status regulationcan produce changes in its constitutive rules and rhetoric,transforming the status regime without abolish- ing it. PartI illustratesthis reform dynamic in the nineteenth century, a period when protest movements were demanding the abolition of slavery and reform of marital status law. Legislatures and courts responded by eliminatingsome of the more overtly hierarchicalfeatures of marital status law, yet adopted gender-biased policies governing domestic labor and domestic violence that were justified as promoting family privacy, rather than marital hierarchy. Similarly, in the aftermath of the Civil War, legislaturesand courts grantedthe newly emancipatedslaves "civil" rights, yet denied them "social" rights, ra- tionalizing miscegation laws and segregation as preserving associationallib- erty, ratherthan racialhierarchy. As these examples illustrate, the rules and reasons the legal system employs to enforce status relationshipsevolve as they are contested. PartII of the essay uses this dynamic model of status regulation to analyze the operations of equal protection law today. We know that doc- trines of heightened scrutiny have disestablishedovertly classificatoryforms
    [Show full text]
  • The Constitutional Limits to Court-Stripping
    College of William & Mary Law School William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository Faculty Publications Faculty and Deans 2005 The onsC titutional Limits to Court-Stripping Michael J. Gerhardt Repository Citation Gerhardt, Michael J., "The onC stitutional Limits to Court-Stripping" (2005). Faculty Publications. 995. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/facpubs/995 Copyright c 2005 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/facpubs THE CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS TO COURT-STRIPPING by Michael J. Gerhardt" This Article is part of a colloquy between Professor Michael J. Gerhardt and Professor Martin Redish about the constitutionality of court-stripping measures. Court-stripping measures are laws restricting federal court jurisdiction over particular subject matters. In particular, the authors discuss the constitutionality of the Marriage Protection Act of 2004. Professor Gerhardt argues that the Act is unconstitutional and threatens to destroy the principles ofseparation ofpowers, federalism and due process. It prevents Supreme Court review of Congressional action and hinders the uniformity and finality of constitutional law. Furthermore, the Act violates the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause as it burdens a suspect class (gays and lesbians) by restricting their access to the federal courts. I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 347 II. GENERAL PRINCIPLES ......................................................................... 349 A. The Constitution Restricts the Means by Which Article III Courts' Constitutional Decisions May Be Overturned ................................... 349 B. Constitutional Precedents Have the Status of Constitutional Law ... 351 C. The Supreme Court is Essential for Ensuring the Uniformity and Finality ofConstitutional Law. ......................................................... 353 III. THE ACT VIOLATES SEPARATION OF POWERS ............................
    [Show full text]