Latest 6 Cases: Vaughn v. State (Constitutional Law), Armstrong v. State (Criminal Law), Dorsey v. State (Criminal Law)

“Might as Well Carry a Purse with That Mask, Joe”: COVID-19, Toxic Masculinity, and the Sad State of National Politics

JOANNA L. GROSSMAN, LINDA C. MCCLAIN

SMU Dedman School of Law professor Joanna L. Grossman and Boston University law professor Linda C. McClain comment on COVID-19, toxic masculinity, and the state of national politics today. Grossman and McClain contrast President Trump’s reckless bravado that endangers the lives of Americans with the empathy of Democratic presidential nominee former Vice President Joe Biden’s in asking people to be patriotic by doing their part by wearing masks to protect other Americans.

Read More

Should Department of Justice Lawyers Defy William Barr?

AUSTIN SARAT

Austin Sarat—Associate Provost, Associate Dean of the Faculty, and William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Science at Amherst College—comments on an open letter addressed to the 100,000 professionals working in the U.S. Department of Justice and published by Lawyers Defending Democracy. In the letter, more than 600 members of the bar from across the United States call on their DOJ colleagues to refrain from “participating in political misuse of the DOJ in the elction period ahead.” Sarat argues that the letter rightly recognizes that Attorney General Barr’s blatant partisanship endangers the integrity of the DOJ itself and its role in preserving the rule of law.

Read More

Vaughn v. State

Citation: 2020 Ark. 313

Opinion Date: October 8, 2020

Judge: Womack

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of second-degree sexual assault and sentence of sixty months' imprisonment, holding that the victim's therapy records were protected from disclosure by the absolute psychotherapist-patient privilege in Ark. R. Evid. 503. On appeal, the court of appeals determined (1) the Arkansas privilege law did not absolutely shield the victim's therapy records, and the circuit court should have conducted an in camera review for favorable Brady evidence; and (2) the records did not satisfy Brady's materiality requirement. The Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals' judgment and affirmed Defendant's conviction, holding (1) the therapy records and communications were privileged under Rule 503; and (2) Defendant was not constitutionally entitled to disclosure of the privileged records.

Armstrong v. State

Citation: 2020 Ark. 309

Opinion Date: October 8, 2020

Judge: Hudson

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for first-degree murder, first-degree escape, and employment a firearm to commit the murder, holding that there was no prejudicial error. Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the circuit court did not err by denying Defendant's motion for directed verdict on the first-degree-murder charge; (2) Defendant was not denied assistance of counsel; (3) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by not instructing the jury on the lesser-included offenses of second-degree murder and manslaughter; and (4) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in excluding certain text messages that were purportedly sent to Defendant by the victim.

Dorsey v. State

Citation: 2020 Ark. 316

Opinion Date: October 8, 2020

Judge: Womack

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of first-degree murder and sentence of life imprisonment plus fifteen years for a firearm enhancement, holding that there was no prejudicial error in the proceedings below. Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the circuit court did not err by (1) admitting the victim's hearsay statements after finding they went to the victim's state of mind at the time of her death; (2) admitting an in-court identification; and (3) admitting evidence of Defendant's efforts to flee law enforcement in Texas and West Virginia as independently relevant to demonstrate a consciousness of guilt.

Hayes v. State

Citation: 2020 Ark. 311

Opinion Date: October 8, 2020

Judge: Rhonda K. Wood

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court denying Appellant's three pro se petitions for a writ of error coram nobis, holding that the circuit court did not err by not granting relief. Appellant pled guilty to four counts of first-degree sexual assault. Appellant later filed three separate petitions for error coram nobis relief. The trial court denied all three petitions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that even if Appellant's allegations were considered to be true, Appellant did not establish that there was a reasonable probability that the allegations would have changed the result of the proceedings.

Talley v. Kelley

Citation: 2020 Ark. 317

Opinion Date: October 8, 2020

Judge: Womack

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's judgment denying and dismissing Appellant's pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, holding that Appellant failed to state a ground for the writ. Following a bench trial, Appellant was convicted of aggravated robbery, theft of property, and employment of a firearm to commit aggravated robbery. The court of appeals affirmed. Appellant later filed a habeas petition alleging that his conviction was invalid because he was denied his right to a speedy trial. The circuit court denied and dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the petition was correctly denied and dismissed because speedy trial claims do not state a viable habeas claim.

Wooten v. State

Citation: 2020 Ark. 305

Opinion Date: October 8, 2020

Judge: Kemp

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court denied Petitioner's pro se second petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis, holding that Petitioner failed to establish grounds for the writ. Petitioner was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death. His death sentence was later modified to a term of life imprisonment without parole. In the instant coram nobis petition, Petitioner asserted that the trial court was required to appoint two attorneys to appoint two attorneys to serve as counsel during his trial and that the single attorney appointed to represent him was ineffective. The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that Petitioner did not establish grounds for the writ.