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. Bartel

Citation: 308 Neb. 169

Opinion Date: January 15, 2021

Judge: Michael G. Heavican

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of violating a domestic abuse protection order, holding that the district court did not err in affirming the county court's denial of Defendant's motion for new trial. In his motion for new trial, Defendant requested that the county court vacate his conviction because of a stipulated order in his separate domestic case that purported to render the original protection order void ab initio. The county court denied the motion. The district court affirmed, concluding that the order in the domestic relations case reflected the parties’ negotiations after trial based on then-existing circumstances and was not newly discovered evidence relevant to Defendant's criminal trial. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no merit to Defendant's contention that the order in his domestic relations case was newly discovered evidence sufficient to warrant a new trial in the criminal case.

State v. Melton

Citation: 308 Neb. 159

Opinion Date: January 15, 2021

Judge: Stacy

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

In these consolidated criminal appeals, the Supreme Court declined to reach the merits of Appellant's arguments and dismissed the appeals for lack of jurisdiction, holding that Appellant's appeals were not perfected within thirty days after the entry of judgment. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Appellant entered no contest pleas to some charged counts relating to a string of motor vehicle thefts and high-speed police chases. The court ultimately found Appellant guilty of seven felonies. Appellant later filed a notice of appeal, challenging the overruling of his motions to modify his sentences and challenging the sentence imposed on one conviction. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that appellate jurisdiction was not perfected within thirty days of the entry of the judgment, and therefore, this Court must dismiss Appellant's appeals.

Mahlendorf v. Mahlendorf

Citation: 308 Neb. 202

Opinion Date: January 15, 2021

Judge: Stacy

Areas of Law: Family Law

The Supreme Court affirmed an order of modification, holding that Appellant was not entitled to assign error to a consent judgment that reflected her negotiated agreement and that was entered at her request. In 2010, the parties' marriage was dissolved by the district court. Appellant was awarded sole legal and physical custody of the parties' two minor children, and Appellee was ordered to pay monthly child support. The decree was subsequently modified to approve a downward deviation in Appellee's child support. In 2016, the district court entered a stipulated order of modification approving the parties' agreement to increase the amount of Appellee's monthly child support obligation but continuing the existing downward deviation. In 2019, Appellant filed the current complaint to modify requesting that the downward deviation in child support be eliminated. The court entered an order of modification reflecting an agreement of the parties. Appellant appealed, arguing that the court erred in determining that Appellee was still entitled to a downward deviation in his child support obligation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because the order of modification approved the parties' agreement on the disputed issues it was, in all respects, a consent judgment entered at the request of the parties, and therefore, Appellant could not complain of error on appeal.

Houghton v. Nebraska Department of Revenue

Citation: 308 Neb. 188

Opinion Date: January 15, 2021

Judge: William B. Cassel

Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law, Tax Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court concluding that income taxpayers did not meet their burden of proof that they abandoned their domicile in Nebraska and acquired a domicile in the United Kingdom (U.K.), holding that competent evidence supported the district court's factual findings. The Department of Revenue issued to Appellants a notice of proposed deficiency determination for individual income tax for tax years 2012 to 2014. Appellants requested a redetermination that no money was due, claiming that the U.K. was their domicile. The Tax Commissioner determined that Appellants failed to sustain their burden of proof. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court's ultimate decision to affirm the Tax Commissioner's order was not in error.