Compassionate release, first step bill and jurors on social media


Petition this week

This week, we focused on asking the Supreme Court to consider whether the Twitter activity of jurors before and during the trial will prompt the hearing to determine tampering and 2018 First step bill It can be used retrospectively to evaluate the sympathetic release request of a prisoner.

When Alan Laurie II, the former Chief Justice of the West Virginia Supreme Court, was convicted of wire transfer and mail fraud in 2018, discussions about the case unsurprisingly spread on Twitter. A juror at Loughry’s trial was later discovered, liked, and reposted several articles criticizing Loughry before the trial. During the trial, she followed two reporters who posted widely on Twitter about the case, but it is unclear whether she actually read any of these tweets.Since 1954, in Remer v. U.S., The Court’s Sixth Amendment precedent held that any direct or indirect private communication or intervention with jurors during the trial was presumed to be biased and prompted the hearing to determine whether the incident was harmful.After being convicted, Loughry sought InhibitorThe hearing investigates the use of social media by jurors during the trial. The District Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit rejected the request because Loughry failed to produce direct evidence that the jurors had access to any tweets about the case during the trial.exist Loughry v. United States, The former Chief Justice of West Virginia asked the court to determine whether the environmental evidence exposed to social media meets the requirements for private communication Inhibitor And give the criminal defendant the right to participate in the hearing.

Two new petitions require the courts to get involved again in the First Step Act, the main criminal justice reform law passed by Congress in 2018. Terry v. United States And another provision will be explained later in this term Concepcion v. United States. The new petition, Watford v. United Stateswith Jarvis v. United States, Involving the interaction of the other two provisions of the “First Step Act”: amendments to the law involving continuous judgments and amendments to the “sympathetic release” regulations.

Amended the first step bill 18 USC § 924(c) Reduce mandatory consecutive sentences for multiple gun convictions and end the practice called “stacking” in Section 924(c). According to the US Sentencing Commission, this practice discriminates against blacks. The amendment can be applied retrospectively, but it only applies to defendants who have not been sentenced when the “First Step Act” is passed. Watford with Jarvis Asked whether the court could consider the amendment when determining a commutation under the compassionate release statute, 18 USC § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i)The bill was also amended by the “First Step Act” to provide more opportunities for commutation. The U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Third, Sixth, and Seventh Circuits held that because Congress did not make a clear retrospective amendment to Article 924(c), it was determined that Article 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) . The US Court of Appeals for the Fourth and Tenth Circuits concluded that the language of Section 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) does allow the District Court to consider changes to the First Act when considering a reduction in sentence. Both petitions require the Supreme Court to stand on the side of the 4th and 10th Circuits to resolve the issue of circuit divisions.

These and others Petition this week as follows:

AlixPartners, LLC v. Foreign Investor Rights Protection Fund
21-518
problem: Whether the ad hoc arbitration for the settlement of commercial disputes between the two parties is a “foreign or international arbitration tribunal” 28 USC § 1782(a) When the arbitration panel does not exercise any government or quasi-government power.

Watford v. United States
21-551
problem?Whether the district court can consider 18 USC § 924(c) In determining whether the defendant has shown “extraordinary and compelling reasons” need to be based on 18 USC § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).

Edward D. Jones & Co., LP v. Anderson
21-552
problem?Whether the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals conflicted with other U.S. Courts of Appeals and concluded that it was wrong Chadbourne & Parke v. Troice Zoom out Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith v. DabitThe interpretation of the “relevant” aspects of the Uniform Standards for Securities Litigation Act requires that the alleged deception leads to specific transactions in specific covered securities.

Jarvis v. United States
21-568
problem: Whether non-retroactive changes to federal laws can be used as “very and convincing reasons”, according to 18 USC § 3582(c)(1)(A).

Escherman v. Puma Biotech
21-577
problem: Yes, down Unitherm Food Systems, Inc. v Swift-Eckrich, Inc. And federal civil procedure rules, defendants who did not file a lawsuit Article 50 Nevertheless, the motion of judgment as a legal issue in the district court can increase the adequacy of the evidence to challenge the appeal of damages.

Loughry v. United States
21-581
problem?Whether the circumstantial evidence of extrajudicial social media contact with the juror on the case is sufficient to give the criminal defendant the right to base Remer v. U.S. To determine “what actually happened, or whether an event that might have occurred is harmful or harmless.”



Source link