Equality Is the Lesson of Our Day

JOSEPH MARGULIES

Cornell law professor Joseph Margulies observes that the COVID-19 pandemic reveals our shared equality as individuals but also lays bare the inequality of American society. Margulies argues that equality is an outcome achieved by one in aid to another, and by government in aid to all in need.

Read More

Wisconsin’s Decision to Have an Election This Month Was Unjust, But Was it Also Unconstitutional? Why the Plaintiffs (Rightly) Lost in the Supreme Court

VIKRAM DAVID AMAR, JASON MAZZONE

Illinois Law dean Vikram David Amar and professor Jason Mazzone comment on the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent per curiam decision staying an injunction by a federal district court in Wisconsin, effectively allowing the election in that state to go forward on with the normal timeline for casting ballots in place, despite concerns over the effects of COVID-19. Amar and Mazzone argue that, while the outcome might have been unjust, the plaintiffs in that case likely did not allege a constitutional violation and thus did not properly allege claims suitable to be remedied in federal court.

Read More

State v. Harris

Docket: 117362

Opinion Date: April 17, 2020

Judge: Wilson

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

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's conviction of possession fo marijuana, holding that Defendant's waiver of jury trial was legally insufficient. On appeal, Defendant argued that he did not properly waive his right to a jury and asserted three other issues. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's convictions without addressing the three remaining issues, holding that because the district court failed properly to apprise Defendant of his right to a jury trial and failed to ensure that Defendant understood the nature of the right he was giving up, Defendant's constitutional right to a jury trial was violated in this case.

State v. Broxton

Docket: 114675

Opinion Date: April 17, 2020

Judge: Stegall

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for second-degree murder, burglary, and theft but reversed Defendant's sentences, holding that any error during the guilt phase was harmless but that the district court erred by scoring Defendant's prior Florida burglary conviction as a person felony instead of a nonperson felony. On appeal, the court of appeals concluded that a trial court may instruct the jury on felony murder even though the State only charged the defendant with premeditated first degree murder. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding (1) the court of appeals erred in concluding that a district court may elect to provide a felony-murder instruction when that crime was not charged, and the district court properly found that the felony-murder instruction was not legally appropriate in this case; (2) the district court erred by excluding from evidence an exculpatory document from a Florida homicide investigation on the ground it was not relevant, but the error was harmless; and (3) the district court improperly scored Defendant's prior Florida burglary conviction as a person felony.

State v. Corbin

Docket: 119665

Opinion Date: April 17, 2020

Judge: Dan Biles

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the district court on remand resentencing Defendant to his original mandatory term of imprisonment after once again finding he was not a person with intellectual disability, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it rejected Defendant's intellectual disability motion and imposed a mandatory term of imprisonment. Defendant pled no contest to first-degree premeditated murder. Before sentencing, Defendant filed a motion pursuant to Kan. Stat. Ann. 21-6622(b) asserting that he was a person with intellectual disability and was thus not subject to a mandatory minimum prison term. The district court denied the motion and sentenced Defendant to a hard twenty-five life sentence. While Defendant's appeal was pending, the Legislature amended Kan. Stat. Ann. 76-12b01(i), which provides new standards for deciding intellectual disability. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for reconsideration of Defendant's motion using the new criteria. On remand, the district court reaffirmed its earlier ruling and again sentenced Defendant to a hard twenty-five life sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court's ruling was reasonably based on the law and was supported by substantial competent evidence.

State v. Frazier

Docket: 117456

Opinion Date: April 17, 2020

Judge: Wilson

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the district court affirming the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion to withdraw plea of no contest to one count of possession of heroin with intent to distribute, holding that the district court's decision in finding no good cause for Defendant to withdraw his plea was based on errors of fact and law, which were grounds for finding abuse of discretion. On appeal, Defendant argued that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his plea of no contest based on misleading or false statements contained in the plea agreement. The court of appeals affirmed the district court. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) there was enough uncertainty in this case to indicate that Defendant's plea agreement was not understandingly made; and (2) therefore, Defendant must be allowed to withdraw his plea.

State v. Uk

Docket: 119712

Opinion Date: April 17, 2020

Judge: Wilson

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for first-degree premeditated murder, holding that the district court did not err in its challenged instructions to the jury. Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court did not err in refusing to give the jury Defendant's requested instruction on voluntary manslaughter as a lesser included offense of first-degree murder because the instruction was not factually appropriate; and (2) the district court did not commit clear error in issuing an unmodified version of Instruction No. 11, which contained the definition of "premeditation" and mirrored PIK Crim. 4th 54.150(d) because the instruction was legally appropriate.