Apology as Accountability in Transitional Justice

LESLEY WEXLER

Illinois law professor Lesley M. Wexler discusses the possibility of and criteria for amend making, amid calls for national unity and moving forward after the violence at the Capitol on January 6. Professor Wexler focuses on Oklahoma Senator James Lankford’s recent apology after his call for an electoral commission, applauding Senator Lankford for his willingness to apologize but pointing out that these actions alone do not undertake much of the hard work demanded by restorative and transitional justice.

Read More

Why Georgia Should Take the Lead in Holding President Trump Accountable for His Crimes Against Democracy

AUSTIN SARAT, JOHN DEVILLE

Austin Sarat—Associate Provost and Associate Dean of the Faculty and William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence & Political Science at Amherst College—and history teacher John deVille argue that George should take the lead in holding Donald Trump accountable for crimes against democracy. Professor Sarat and Mr. deVille point out that a criminal trial with Trump in the dock would be both “a galvanizing national seminar on democratic values” and “a chance for officers of the court to question the President in a forum where he could neither obfuscate nor intimidate.”

Read More

Trump’s Pardons Can and Must Be Challenged and Nullified

NEIL H. BUCHANAN

UF Levin College of Law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan argues that the President’s pardon power is not absolute or unreviewable, despite what many have suggested. Professor Buchanan observes that this conventional misreading of the clause is agrammatical because it treats an ambiguous provision as if it were unambiguous, and he points out that even self-styled textualists do not construct comparable provisions of the Constitution so absolutely.

Read More

State v. Crosby

Docket: 119824

Opinion Date: January 15, 2021

Judge: Stegall

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

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction for distribution of a controlled substance and affirmed Defendant's remaining convictions, holding that there was insufficient evidence to support the distribution conviction. A jury found Defendant guilty of felony murder, distribution of a controlled substance, attempted aggravated robbery, criminal possession of a weapon, attempted murder in the second degree, criminal discharge of a firearm, aggravated battery, and aggravated burglary. The Supreme Court reversed one conviction and otherwise affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in consolidating Defendant's cases for trial; (2) the evidence was insufficient to convict Defendant of distribution; and (3) the jury instructions on Defendant's aggravated robbery, felony murder, and criminal possession of a firearm charges were not erroneous.

State v. Coble

Docket: 118382

Opinion Date: January 15, 2021

Judge: Dan Biles

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Criminal Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction of one count of aggravated arson, holding that where the State charged three identical counts of aggravated arson and the jury instructions and verdict form failed to distinguish those counts, this Court was unable to reliably associate particular conduct with the count of conviction, frustrating appellate review and adversely implicating Defendant's due process rights. Defendant was charged with three counts of aggravated arson. All charges were alleged to have occurred at different times. The jury convicted Defendant of one count and acquitted him of the other two. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that because it was impossible to determine the jury's verdict as to which crime if found Defendant guilty of beyond a reasonable doubt, this Court's confidence in the propriety of Defendant's conviction for this criminal charge is undermined by concerns for Defendant's due process rights.

State v. Phillips

Docket: 121075

Opinion Date: January 15, 2021

Judge: Wall

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for first-degree murder and aggravated battery, holding that none of Defendant's allegations of error required reversal of his convictions. Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court erred in ruling on Defendant's motion for immunity under Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-5231, and the appropriate remedy was to review the record of the original hearing to determine whether the State satisfied its burden to show probable cause that Defendant's use of deadly force was not statutorily justified; (2) the State showed probable cause under the totality of the circumstances; (3) the district court properly denied Defendant's request for a lesser included offense instruction to the aggravated battery charge; and (4) the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion for new trial.