Latest 4 Cases: Smith v. State (Civil Rights), Owens v. Payne (Criminal Law), Rainer v. Director, Arkansas Department of Correction (Criminal Law)

Trump’s Lawyers Will Get Away with Facilitating His Anti-Democratic Antics and They Know It

AUSTIN SARAT

Austin Sarat—Associate Provost and Associate Dean of the Faculty and William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence & Political Science at Amherst College—predicts that because the lawyer discipline process is broken, President Trump’s lawyers will get away with facilitating his anti-democratic misconduct. Professor Sarat notes that Lawyers Defending American Democracy (LDAD) released a letter calling on bar authorities to investigate and punish members of Trump’s post-election legal team, but he points out that while LDAD can shame those members, it still lacks the ability itself to discipline or disbar.

Read More

Smith v. State

Citation: 2020 Ark. 410

Opinion Date: December 10, 2020

Judge: Hudson

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

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the circuit court's denial of Appellant's petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.5, holding that Appellant's trial attorneys were ineffective. Appellant was convicted of capital murder, kidnapping, and abuse of a corpse. In his petition for postconviction relief, Appellant argued, among other things, that trial counsel was ineffective because they abandoned their objection to instructing the jury that the death of the victim's unborn child could be considered an aggravating factor for sentencing purposes. The circuit court rejected Appellant's claims. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) the circuit court erred in presenting to the jury the death of the victim's unborn child as an aggravating factor, and Appellant's trial attorneys were ineffective when they abandoned their objection to this instruction; and (2) there was a reasonable probability that the fact-finder's decision would have been different absent counsels' errors.

Owens v. Payne

Citation: 2020 Ark. 413

Opinion Date: December 10, 2020

Judge: Hudson

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court denying Appellant's pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, holding that Appellant failed to state a claim for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus because he failed to demonstrate that his sentence was illegal on its face. Appellant pleaded guilty to first-degree murder and kidnapping and was sentenced to life imprisonment. In his habeas petition, Appellant argued that his sentence of life imprisonment for first-degree murder was illegal because the order did not abide by the requirements set forth in Ark. Code Ann. 16-90-804. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) under the circumstances, section 16-90-804 does not apply; and (2) Appellant was not entitled to habeas relief on the claims presented.

Rainer v. Director, Arkansas Department of Correction

Citation: 2020 Ark. 416

Opinion Date: December 10, 2020

Judge: Womack

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court denying Appellant's pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, holding that Appellant failed to state a ground on which the writ could issue. Appellant was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced as a habitual offender to eighty years' imprisonment. The court of appeals affirmed. In his petition for writ of habeas corpus Appellant alleged that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the judgment sentencing him as a habitual offender and that the judgment was illegal on its face because he was convicted under a habitual offender statute that was not in effect when he committed the murder. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant's allegations were not cognizable in habeas proceedings.

Smith v. State

Citation: 2020 Ark. 408

Opinion Date: December 10, 2020

Judge: Kemp

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court denied Petitioner's pro se third petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis, holding that Petitioner failed to demonstrate in the petition that the writ should issue. Petitioner was convicted of murder in the first degree. The court of appeals affirmed. In his third coram nobis petition Petitioner argued that the State violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), by failing to disclose favorable treatment granted to a key witness in exchange for her trial testimony and by failing to disclose the transcript of a 911 call made by the witness, and that exculpatory findings from his codefendant's trial would have changed the outcome in Petitioner's trial. The Supreme Court denied relief, holding that Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the writ should issue and that some of his claims were successive.