Latest 2 Cases: Harris v. Hutchison (Constitutional Law), Pitts v. State (Criminal Law)

Senate Secrecy: Can the Votes of Senators on President Trump’s Impeachment be Withheld from the Voting Public?

VIKRAM DAVID AMAR, JASON MAZZONE

Illinois law dean Vikram David Amar and professor Jason Mazzone evaluate the suggestion made by some that the votes of senators on President Trump’s impeachment can and should be private. Amar and Mazzone argue that while the text of the Constitution alone does not foreclose secrecy, structural, prudential, and logistical considerations strongly disfavor a secret vote on the matter.

Read More

Harris v. Hutchison

Citation: 2020 Ark. 3

Opinion Date: January 9, 2020

Judge: Hudson

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Labor & Employment Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the circuit court's order granting a motion to dismiss filed by the Arkansas Governor and Arkansas Livestock and Poultry Commission Deputy Director and dismissing Plaintiff's claims pursuant to the Arkansas Whistle-Blower Act, Ark. Code Ann. 21-1-601 et seq., as well as the state and federal constitutions, holding that sovereign immunity barred Plaintiff's claims against Defendants in their official capacities but was no defense to Plaintiff's claims against Defendants in their individual capacities. In his complaint, Plaintiff alleged that he was terminated because he refused to violate state policy. The circuit court dismissed all claims against Defendants solely on the basis of sovereign immunity. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part, holding (1) sovereign immunity precluded Plaintiff's official capacity claims; but (2) the circuit court erred when it found that sovereign immunity barred Plaintiff's claims against Defendants in their individual capacities.

Pitts v. State

Citation: 2020 Ark. 7

Opinion Date: January 9, 2020

Judge: Womack

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court denying Appellant's petition for writ of error coram nobis, holding that Appellant did not show an abuse of discretion in the denial of the writ. In 1979, Appellant was convicted of capital felony murder. After the Supreme Court gave Appellant leave to proceed with a coram nobis petition, Appellant filed his petition, alleging a violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). The trial court determined that no Brady violation had occurred and declined to issue the writ. On appeal, Appellant claimed that the trial court failed to conduct a proper analysis when it did not treat the admission of certain evidence as structural error and failed to apply the law of the case doctrine. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the error in this case was not structural and that the court was correct in its analysis.