McGillt’s aftermath and testimony about future crimes
Petition this week
August 20, 2021
This week, we focused on the certificate petition asking the Supreme Court to consider, among other things, a direct challenge to the court’s ruling McGillt v Oklahoma, An adversarial clause issue involving statements about possible future crimes and disagreements on the scope of the limited immunity principle.
Last year, the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 McGillt v Oklahoma Eastern half of Oklahoma (nearly 43% of states) Eligible to be an “Indian country” for purpose Major Crime LawThe court therefore deprived the Oklahoma court of jurisdiction over crimes committed by “any Indian” in the “Indian State” and granted the federal government exclusive jurisdiction to try these crimes.Now, Oklahoma claims Oklahoma v Bose Due to McGillt, The district court was overwhelmed, and many crimes were not investigated and prosecuted.
Chief Justice Roberts McGillt Dissidents predict that the burden on state and local governments will be “extraordinary.”as a result of McGillt, The state stated that it has submitted more than 3,000 applications for post-conviction relief, and the Oklahoma Department of Corrections has released more than 150 prisoners from custody (almost half of them have been released). Since about a quarter of post-conviction challenges involve crimes that have exceeded the federal statute of limitations, there are more implications. Currently, nearly 2 million people in Oklahoma live in areas affected by the epidemic. McGillt Only 10-15% of these people are Native Americans. The total population of Oklahoma is less than 4 million.
The new petition from Oklahoma involves non-Native American Shaun Bosse. Bosse murdered his Native American girlfriend Katrina Griffin and her two young children. Bosse was convicted of three counts of murder and sentenced to death in the Oklahoma court; however, 10 years after the murder, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals approved post-conviction relief based on McGillt – The reasoning is that the crime happened to Indians in the Indian country, so the federal government has the exclusive power to prosecute.In response, Oklahoma requested and received approval Emergency stay, Which allows the state to retain custody of Bosse while its certificate application is pending.Oklahoma claims court of appeals improperly extended McGillt By applying it to crimes committed by non-Native Americans and asking the judge to veto the problem McGillt.
In July, We covered two petitions The confrontation clause involving the Sixth Amendment-in the context of the testimony of the sexual assault nurse examiner and the accomplice. An important feature of the confrontation clause is that unless the defendant has the opportunity to cross-examine the accuser, it will prevent the acceptance of “testimony” evidence. Wisconsin v. Jensen A new confrontation clause was raised to the judge, that is, whether the fear statement about possible future crimes is “testimony.”
Before Julie Jensen’s death, she told the police that she was not suicidal and if she died, her husband Mark Jensen should be considered a suspect. Julie died later and her husband was convicted of murder. The evidence provided during the trial included a handwritten letter and voice mail to the police, in which Julie expressed concern that her husband planned to kill her. The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that these statements are “testimony rumors” and therefore inadmissible under the adversarial clause. The petition argues that other courts believe that statements about possible future crimes are almost never testimony, and the definition adopted by the Wisconsin Supreme Court is too broad. The judges are required to conduct a review to consider whether forward-looking statements about future crimes should be treated as evidence.
finally, Madison Legacy Jody Jensen v Tubbs It involves the scope covered by the principle of limited immunity. Kennon Tubbs is a private doctor who provided medical services in a county jail in Utah. In 2016, Madison Jensen was arrested and detained on drug charges. After arriving in prison, she began to abstain from opioids, but did not provide any treatment. Four days later, she died of dehydration and was alone in the cell.
Madison’s estate sues Tubbs, accusing him of violating constitutional rights 42 USC § 1983The district court found that Tubbs’s liability was a matter of fact and should be decided by the jury. However, the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit overturned this claim, arguing that the limited immunity prohibits the claim. This decision deepens the existing disagreement as to whether private medical professionals in prisons can use the doctrine. The manor argued that even with ordinary negligence, doctors would be affected by malpractice lawsuits, and therefore Article 1983 liability should not be prohibited. The court is required to resolve disagreements by determining whether private medical professionals are entitled to qualifying waivers.
These and others Petition this week as follows:
Roxas v. Federal Aviation Administration
problem: Did the 9th Circuit erroneously adopt the consultant’s inference in a severely divergent overall ruling and hold the “intra-institutional memorandum or letter” in the Section 5 exemption of the Freedom of Information Act (5 USC § 552(b)(5)) Includes documents prepared by APTMetrics, a private external consultant.
Madison Legacy Jody Jensen v Tubbs
problem?Whether private medical staff working in correctional institutions or mental health institutions can claim qualified immunity.
Oklahoma v Bose
problem: (1) Whether a state can impose procedural or equitable obstacles to post-conviction relief for claims that the state lacks procuratorial power because the conviction occurred in the Indian state; (2) Whether a state has the right to sue India in India A non-Indian who committed a crime; (3) Whether McGillt v Oklahoma, Should be rejected.
Cavaliers v. America
problem: (1) Whether the court that analyzed whether a Fourth Amendment seizure occurred was explicitly prohibited from considering a person’s race; (2) Whether seizure occurred in all circumstances in this case.
Behrman Capital IV, LP v. Reynolds
problem: Does the principle of derivative jurisdiction prevent federal courts from exercising personal jurisdiction after they are removed from state courts that lack the personal jurisdiction of the “party”.
Wisconsin v. Jensen
problem: (1) Whether a person’s statement of fear of possible future crimes meets the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment; (2) When a person reports ongoing psychological domestic abuse and expresses fear of future physical harm, the person aims to end Whether the statement of the continuing emergency is non-proving.