#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

In Re: Larry Sharp

Docket: 20-30127

Opinion Date: August 12, 2020

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

After the Supreme Court ruled in Ramos v. Louisiana, 140 S. Ct. 1390, 1394, 1397 (2020), that the Sixth Amendment, as incorporated against the states in the Fourteenth Amendment, requires a unanimous verdict to convict a defendant of a serious offense, movant moved for the Fifth Circuit's authorization to file a second or successive federal habeas petition. The court denied the motion for authorization to file a successive habeas corpus petition and held that, even if the court assumed that movant's current claim is different from the one he raised twelve years ago, it remains barred by 28 U.S.C. 2244(b)(2). The court explained that, even if it further assumed that Ramos constitutes a "new rule of constitutional law," the Supreme Court plainly has not made it retroactive to cases on collateral review.

United States v. Penado-Aparicio

Docket: 19-50401

Opinion Date: August 12, 2020

Judge: Carl E. Stewart

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

Defendant appealed his sentence for illegal reentry, contending that the district court vindictively resentenced him to a harsher sentence. In this case, defendant's initial sentence was 72 months that was to run concurrently with a separate 24 month term. Defendant then appealed the 72 month sentence for violating the Ex Post Facto Clause, the case was remanded for resentencing, and the district court sentenced defendant to 60 months but ordered that the sentence now run consecutively to the 24 month sentence. The Fifth Circuit held that the record evidence supports a presumption of vindictiveness that has not been rebutted as required by Fifth Circuit case law. Furthermore, the district court plainly erred in ordering the instant sentence to run consecutive to defendant's revocation sentence. Accordingly, the court exercised its discretion and modified the judgment so that defendant's imprisonment terms run concurrently.