Latest Case: State v. Melendez (Criminal Law)

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

State v. Melendez

Docket: SCWC-18-0000522

Opinion Date: April 24, 2020

Judge: Richard W. Pollack

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the intermediate court of appeals (ICA) vacating the order of the circuit court dismissing the charge against Defendant for possession of a dangerous drug in the third degree, holding that the ICA erred in holding that, in order to prevail on a motion to dismiss a possessory drug violation as de minimis, a defendant must prove that the possessed drugs could not have any pharmacological or physiological effect. The charge against Defendant stemmed from the discovery that he was in possession of .005 grams of a substance containing cocaine. The circuit court found that the violation was de minimis and dismissed the charge. The ICA vacated the circuit court's order, determining that the circuit court erred in finding that the cocaine possessed by Defendant could not have had any pharmacological or physiological effect upon consumption. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the record supported the determination that Defendant's violation was de minimis because the possessed drug was neither usable nor saleable; and (2) therefore, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the charge.