Posted on 06/27/2019 2:57:04 AM PDT by SMGFan
In 2010, Andre Haymond was convicted of possessing child pornography and sentenced to 38 months in prison, followed by 10 years of supervised release. He was also required to register as a sex offender. In 2015, a federal district court sent Haymond back to prison for five more years because he had violated the terms of his supervised release. Haymond argued that the federal law requiring him to return to prison violated his constitutional right to have his sentence determined by a jury, rather than a judge, beyond a reasonable doubt. Today a divided Supreme Court agreed.
Today’s decision dealt with a provision of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, which Congress passed in 2006 to “protect the public from sex offenders and offenders against children.” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote an opinion that was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Gorsuch emphasized that only “a jury, acting on proof beyond a reasonable doubt, may take a person’s liberty.” But in this case, he observed, “a congressional statute compelled a federal judge to send a man to prison for a minimum of five years without empaneling a jury of his peers or requiring the government to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt” – which, in his view, violated both the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of due process and the Sixth Amendment’s right to a jury trial.
Gorsuch also took pains to make clear that he was not saying that a jury will be needed whenever prosecutors are seeking to revoke a defendant’s supervised release. His opinion, he stressed, was limited to this specific statute, which he described as “an unusual provision enacted little more than a decade ago.” Gorsuch acknowledged that requiring a jury for supervised-release revocation proceedings will be “inconvenient for the government.” “Yet like much else in our Constitution,” he maintained, “the jury system isn’t designed to promote efficiency but to protect liberty.”
Justice Stephen Breyer agreed with Gorsuch on the result in the case, but not with his reasoning. In most cases, Breyer contended, the revocation of supervised release is generally understood as “part of the penalty for the initial offense.” When supervised release is violated, he continued, the punishment is for the failure to follow the conditions that the court imposed, rather than for the conduct that prompted the court to revoke the defendant’s supervised release. But in Haymond’s case, Breyer emphasized, the revocation of supervised release is more like a punishment for a new offense – for which the defendant would be entitled to a jury. For that reason, Breyer agreed with Gorsuch that the statute in this case is unconstitutional and that Haymond’s case should be sent back to the lower court for it to decide what to do next
U.S. Supreme Court overturns mandatory prison sentence in Tulsa sex offender case
https://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/u-s-supreme-court-overturns-mandatory-prison-sentence-in-tulsa/article_9dca1491-d053-5d2e-875b-22fd197ae0dd.html
So parole violations must all now go to jury before tossing an offender back in jail?
No, if, say, a convict is sentenced to 10 years. Serves five, is released on parole and violates the terms of their parole they can still be sent back for the remainder of their sentence. This was regarding a federal law that allowed a Judge to add another five years to the original Sentence for a parole violation even if the convict had served most or all of the original sentence. The court ruled a Judge can't unilaterally do that and would have to have a new jury trial to add any additional time.
Well we are either going to follow constitution or we are not.
The constitution places limits on government power for a long time we have forgotten that.
Well we are either going to follow constitution or we are not.
The constitution places limits on government power for a long time we have forgotten that.
even the Justices know that it opens that door:
Gorsuch acknowledged that requiring a jury for supervised-release revocation proceedings will be “inconvenient for the government.” “Yet like much else in our Constitution,” he maintained, “the jury system isn’t designed to promote efficiency but to protect liberty.”
...Justice Stephen Breyer agreed with Gorsuch on the result in the case, but not with his reasoning. In most cases, Breyer contended, the revocation of supervised release is generally understood as “part of the penalty for the initial offense.” When supervised release is violated, he continued, the punishment is for the failure to follow the conditions that the court imposed, rather than for the conduct that prompted the court to revoke the defendant’s supervised release. But in Haymond’s case, Breyer emphasized, the revocation of supervised release is more like a punishment for a new offense – for which the defendant would be entitled to a jury.
but they are violating the terms of the parole. And Gorsech wants that to go to jury trial.
Supervised release IS a parole officer. Call them by another name but they are still doing that job. It is a term of the limit.
And what of the “life without parole” criminals who’ve been released in New York and elsewhere by activist judges and pennypinching politicians who overturned jury decisions and went ahead and released prisoners who were never supposed to get out of prison?
>>It is a term of the limit.
lost thought, it is a condition of the punishment sentenced. “you will abide by these requirements”. Violating the terms has repercussions.
True, but they have all been the same kind of cases. Gorsuch seems to have libertarian streak when it comes to the federal government's criminal justice powers. Not really a surprise if you look at his history on the federal courts and pretty consistent if you look at his mentor Scalia who often took a dim view of government criminal justice overreach. However, Gorsuch seems willing to go even farther than Scalia in these matter. The good news is that in all other areas Gorsuch seems to be a pretty rock solid conservative vote.
Need a jury to add to a penalty.
Agreed.
Gorsuch is not a “Conservative”. He is a Constitutionalist. There are limits to Goobermint powers arising from a written document created to protect the people and our liberties from Goobermint overreach.
He is following what he understands those words to have meant to the people that wrote them.
OK by me.
That’s not what he said. Gorsuch is right in his ruling.
They can revoke your parole but they can’t add jail time beyond the original sentence.
but he is in majority thanks to Breyer, RBG, Kagan, Sotomayor. That taints my view of the decisions.
When one these retires Gorsuch views will be on the losing end of 5- 4 . Will the new justices join Gorsuch, will Roberts , Kavanaugh join him?
The key was that the government didn’t have to prove a violation of his parole. So many people tend to be sent back to prison over what may or may not be a real violation of parole.
congratulations!!!!! you win the internet for the day!!! that post was crystal clear and spot on !!!!
The offense is violating terms of release, not additional time on the original charge.
A pillar of the progressive agenda IS a Congress that keeps abdicating Congress’ sole federal law making authority to the executive and the judiciary. Gorsuch identifies that clearly in laws that are vague and laws that hand too much discretionary power to regulators and courts. To Gorsuch the issue is not the subject matter of a particular law - whether it be about “sex” crimes or something else. Liberty is Liberty and respect for rights of defendants is not about the subject matter of a particular law. If that Liberty can be abused by one law, it becomes allowed by other laws - laws even you may object to.
At its face, from what is presented here, this looks like a good decision. That said, there’s no presentation of the dissent.
Still you need a jury to decide if they are guilty if you’re going to add more time to them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.