Rethinking Retroactivity in Light of the Supreme Court’s Jury Unanimity Requirement

MICHAEL C. DORF

In light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision Monday in Ramos v. Louisiana, in which it held that the federal Constitution forbids states from convicting defendants except by a unanimous jury, Cornell law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses the Court’s jurisprudence on retroactivity. Dorf highlights some costs and benefits of retroactivity and argues that the Court’s refusal to issue advisory opinions limits its ability to resolve retroactivity questions in a way that responds to all the relevant considerations.

Read More

Cave v. State

Citation: 2020 Ark. 356

Opinion Date: April 23, 2020

Judge: Josephine L. Hart

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional 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 the circuit court did not err in denying the petition. Appellant was found guilty of two counts of delivery of a controlled substance and one count of maintaining a drug premises. In his habeas petition, Appellant argued that he was actually innocent because his arrest and conviction was based on the false testimony of a witness who had a lengthy criminal history. Appellant further argued that the writ should issue because he was not afforded effective assistance of counsel. The circuit court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant's claims regarding the witness's credibility do not constitute a valid assertion that he was being unlawfully detained; and (2) Appellant did not actually connect an allegation of ineffective assistance of counsel to his allegation that he was unlawfully detained.

Thomas v. State

Citation: 2020 Ark. 354

Opinion Date: April 23, 2020

Judge: Josephine L. Hart

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

The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant's conviction of capital murder, holding that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction and that the circuit court did not err in denying Appellant's motion to suppress tracking data generated by his cellphone. On appeal, Appellant argued that the trial court erred by denying his directed-verdict motion because the evidence supported the defense's theory of the case that he did not intend to shoot the victim. Further, Appellant argued that the court abused its discretion in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained from the seizure of AT&T phone records. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient to support the capital murder conviction; and (2) the circuit court correctly denied the motion to suppress.

Williams v. Baptist Health

Citation: 2020 Ark. 350

Opinion Date: April 23, 2020

Judge: Kemp

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Labor & Employment Law, Personal Injury

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the circuit court dismissing Appellant's action against Baptist Health appellees and John Hearnsberger, M.D., holding that the circuit court abused its discretion in denying Appellant's motions to compel production of two types of disputed discovery. Appellant, a surgeon, was on the medical staff of Baptist Health from 2003 until 2011, when his appointment and clinic privileges at Baptist Health Medical Center-Little Rock were terminated, effective immediately. Baptist Health also reported the suspension of Appellant's clinical privileges to the Arkansas State Medical Board, which, in 2014, revoked Appellant's license. Appellant appealed the revocation, and his license was reinstated. In 2011, Appellant filed a lawsuit against Baptist Health and several individuals, asserting several claims. The circuit court entered a consent order dismissing the Medical Board and Dr. Hearnsberger in his official capacity. The circuit court then granted summary judgment on Appellant's remaining claims. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the circuit court abused its discretion in denying Appellant's motions to compel production of two types of discovery, and the discovery error was not harmless as to Appellant's discrimination and tortious-interference claims.

Berger v. Bryant

Citation: 2020 Ark. 357

Opinion Date: April 23, 2020

Judge: Rhonda K. Wood

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court denying Appellant's petition to proceed in forma pauperis on a petition for writ of mandamus and a motion for declaratory judgment, holding that Appellant failed to state a colorable cause of action. In 1998, Appellant was convicted of rape. In his petition for a writ of mandamus, Appellant asserted that he sought information pursuant to the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act regarding his rape conviction but received no response. The circuit court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) even if Appellant had requested disclosable information, he would not be entitled to inspect it as an incarcerated person; and (2) Appellant did not demonstrate a legitimate claim given the facts presented and therefore failed to establish a colorable cause of action to support his request to proceed in forma pauperis.

Carroll v. State

Citation: 2020 Ark. 360

Opinion Date: April 23, 2020

Judge: Wynne

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court denying Appellant's motion for leave to file a petition for writ of error cram knobs, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in declining to issue the writ. Appellant pled guilty to rape and was sentenced as a habitual offender to 720 months' imprisonment. In his coram nobis petition, Appellant alleged several grounds for relief, including claims of actual innocence, an invalid arrest warrant, a coerced guilty plea, and prosecutorial misconduct. The circuit court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant did not demonstrate that that the writ should issue and failed diligently to proceed on his claim for coram nobis relief.

Chatmon v. Kelley

Citation: 2020 Ark. 355

Opinion Date: April 23, 2020

Judge: Josephine L. Hart

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court denied Appellant's appeal from the order of the circuit court denying his petition to proceed in forma pauperis on the grounds that Appellant failed to state a colorable cause of action in a petition for writ of habeas corpus, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by denying Appellant's in forma pauperis petition. In his habeas petition, Appellant alleged that the trial court lacked jurisdiction in his criminal case. Before this case was submitted to the Supreme Court, Appellant filed two motions, including a "Judicial Notice of a Void Judgment" and a "Notice to the Court." The Supreme Court denied the motions, holding that neither motion was cognizable under the Court's rules. The Court then affirmed the Supreme Court's denial of Appellant's in forma pauperis petition, holding that the circuit court correctly found that Appellant did not assert a colorable cause of action.

McClinton v. State

Citation: 2020 Ark. 353

Opinion Date: April 23, 2020

Judge: Karen R. Baker

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court denied Petitioner's second petition requesting permission to proceed in the trial court with a petition for writ of error coram nobis, holding that Petitioner's proposed attack on the judgment had no merit. Petitioner was convicted of raping a mentally handicapped sixteen-year-old girl and was sentenced to life imprisonment. In his first petition for writ of error coram nobis Petitioner alleged a number of errors in the trial procedure. The first petition was denied. In his second coram nobis petition, Petitioner alleged violations of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). The Supreme Court denied the writ, holding that Petitioner failed to meet his burden of demonstrating a fundamental error of fact extrinsic to the record.

Siegel v. State

Citation: 2020 Ark. 359

Opinion Date: April 23, 2020

Judge: Wynne

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant's appeal from the circuit court's orders denying her motions to declare Ark. Code Ann. 5-62-106 (disposition of animal) and Ark. Code Ann. 5-62-111 (prevention of cruelty) unconstitutional and conditionally granting her motion for return of seized property, holding that there was no final, appealable order in this case. Appellant was convicted of thirty-one misdemeanor counts of cruelty to animals. The circuit court subsequently dismissed the charges on speedy-trial grounds. The State appealed, and the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on the grounds that it was not authorized. Appellant had filed motions seeking a declaration that sections 5-62-106 and -111 are unconstitutional and seeking the return of her seized property. The circuit court denied the constitutional claims and entered a conditional order granting Appellant's motion for return of seized property. Appellant appealed. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that because the conditional order did not make specific findings as to the return of the property or as to damages and because it expressly left open the possibility of further proceedings, there was no final, appealable order in this case.