Who Counts as a Jew?

SHERRY F. COLB

Cornell law professor Sherry F. Colb comments on a recent decision by the Supreme Court of Israel holding that people who have undergone Conservative or Reform conversions in Israel qualify as Jews under the Israeli Law of Return. Professor Colb explains the significance of this decision and explores some of the downsides that remain in the Israeli approach to who counts as a Jew.

Read More

Ellie v. State

Docket: 120030

Opinion Date: March 5, 2021

Judge: Marla J. Luckert

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

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court reversing Defendant's conviction of aggravated battery, rape, and aggravated kidnapping on the grounds that a conflict of interest existed between Defendant and his counsel that adversely affected the representation. In his Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-1507 motion for relief from his convictions Defendant argued that his counsel had a personal and financial conflict of interest that adversely affected his performance in Defendant's case. The district court agreed and set aside Defendant's convictions without determining whether prejudice resulted from the conflict of interest. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant's convictions must be reversed based on the financial conflict of interest of his trial counsel.

State v. Thornton

Docket: 120028

Opinion Date: March 5, 2021

Judge: Dan Biles

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

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for possession of marijuana, methamphetamine, and drug paraphernalia, holding that the trial court erred in admitting evidence that a syringe was found by police during a search that violated Defendant's Fourth Amendment rights but that the error was harmless. On appeal, the State conceded that the district court should have granted Defendant's motion to suppress on the syringe, admitting that the search incident to arrest exception for a warrantless search did not apply to this particular search. The court of appeals affirmed, accepting the State's concession that the syringe discovery was the product of an illegal search but without determining whether the evidence was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding the court's admission of the syringe evidence was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

In re Care & Treatment of Quillen

Docket: 120184

Opinion Date: March 5, 2021

Judge: Wall

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Health Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Richard Quillen's petition to be placed in transitional release from his civil commitment as a sexually violent predator under the Kansas Sexually Violent Predator Act (KSVPA), holding that the jury instructions given at Quillen's transitional release hearing were constitutionally adequate. After a jury trial, the court found that Quillen's mental abnormality or personality disorder remainder such that he was not safe to be placed in transitional release. On appeal, Quillen argued that the district court erred when it denied his request for an instruction that the jury must find Quillen had serious difficulty controlling his behavior. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) at a transitional release hearing, substantive due process requirements are satisfied when the jury instructions as a whole require the jury to necessarily and implicitly find the respondent continues to have serious difficulty controlling his dangerous behavior; and (2) the jury instructions in Quillen's case were constitutionally adequate under this standard.

State v. Hayes

Docket: 121881

Opinion Date: March 5, 2021

Judge: Marla J. Luckert

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's summary dismissal of Defendant's motion to correct an illegal sentence, holding that the district court did not err. Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder, aggravated robbery, and conspiracy to commit robbery. Upon sentencing, the sentencing judge granted the State's request for an upward departure without the use of a jury. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions on direct appeal, and the mandate issued on January 9, 1996. In his latest postconviction motion, Defendant argued that his upward departure sentence violated his due process rights under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) and State v. Gould, 23 P.3d 801 (2001). The district court summarily dismissed Defendant's motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that several factors precluded Defendant from pursuing relief through a motion for illegal sentence, including the fact that a motion for illegal sentence cannot serve as a vehicle for raising constitutional claims such as Defendant's Apprendi claim.