Latest 2 Cases: Atwater v. State (Criminal Law), Freeman v. State (Criminal Law)

#MeToo and What Men and Women Are Willing to Say and Do

SHERRY F. COLB

Cornell Law professor Sherry F. Colb explores why people have such strong feelings about the #MeToo movement (whether they are advocates or opponents) and suggests that both sides rest their positions on contested empirical assumptions about the behavior of men and women. Colb argues that what we believe to be true of men and women generally contributes to our conclusions about the #MeToo movement and our perceptions about how best to handle the accusations of those who come forward.

Read More

Atwater v. State

Docket: SC19-1709

Opinion Date: August 13, 2020

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court denying Defendant's fifth successive postconviction motion filed pursuant to Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851, holding that Defendant was not entitled to postconviction relief. Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder and robbery and sentenced to death. In his fifth successive postconviction motion, Defendant argued that his counsel conceded guilt without his consent and that the error was structural. The trial court dismissed the motion on the grounds that it was untimely and that, even if it had been timely, it was without merit. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant did not state a facially sufficient claim.

Freeman v. State

Docket: SC19-1532

Opinion Date: August 13, 2020

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court summarily denying Defendant's second successive motion for post conviction relief, holding that Defendant was not entitled to postconviction relief. Defendant was convicted of first-degree felony murder and burglary with an assault. The trial judge imposed the death sentence, and the Supreme Court affirmed. Defendant later filed a second successive motion for postconviction relief under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.851 claiming that he was entitled to relief under Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016), and Hurst v. State, 202 So. 3d 40 (Fla. 2016), and Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002). The trial court summarily denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant was not entitled to retroactive Hurst relief; and (2) Defendant's intellectual disability claim was untimely.