Petition this week

This week, we focused on the certification petition for the Supreme Court to consider. Among other things, whether the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals correctly followed the Supreme Court’s order in a death sentence defendant’s claim that the lawyer’s assistance was invalid , Whether Georgia can require death penalty defendants to claim intellectual disability to prove that disability excludes reasonable doubt, and whether the law of Kansas criminalizes intrusion into animal facilities by deception as a violation of freedom of speech.

Lawyer’s assistance is invalid

In June 2020, the Supreme Court issued Summary reversal – Means that it decided the case without briefing or oral arguments – in Andrews v. Texas, A death sentence defendant claims that the assistance of a lawyer under the law is invalid Strickland v. WashingtonIn the unsigned opinion, the court ruled that Terence Andrus had proved that his lawyer performed poorly in sentencing for failing to investigate or provide mitigating evidence. The Supreme Court instructed the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to consider whether this inadequate lawyer had caused a prejudice against Andrews—that is, whether mitigating evidence might prompt at least one juror to choose life-long parole rather than death.

On remand, the Texas court ruled that inappropriate lawyers did not prejudice Andrews.Submit a new petition in one second Andrews v. Texas, Andrews insisted that the Texas court ignored the Supreme Court’s clear guidance on conducting bias analysis. In particular, Andrews argued that despite the Supreme Court’s contrary opinion, the Texas court did not consider how Andrews’ lawyers misrepresented the trial record, and only focused on the state’s aggravated evidence, and ignored the new mitigation. Punishment evidence. Andrews further argued that the Texas court’s decision conflicted with the principle of “vertical precedent”, that is, lower courts must follow the Supreme Court’s decision.

Intellectual disability and the death penalty

In 2012, a jury in Georgia convicted Rodney Young that he had killed the son of his separated girlfriend and sentenced to death, dismissing his claim that he was mentally retarded.In Georgia, the defendant cited Atkins v. Virginia – The Supreme Court believes that the Eighth Amendment prohibits the execution of persons with intellectual disabilities – it must be proved that there is no reasonable doubt about the disability of persons with intellectual disabilities.In reviewing Young’s case, the Georgia Supreme Court relied on Supreme Court of 1952 Dismissed the challenge to the state law, which requires the defendant to prove his innocence due to insanity beyond reasonable doubt.

In his petition, Yang insisted that Georgia is the only state in the United States that needs to prove intellectual disability, which is the most demanding burden in American law. He asked the judge to decide whether Georgia’s standards violated the due process clause and the Eighth Amendment, creating an unacceptable risk that constitutional rights will not be enforced and people with intellectual disabilities will be executed.The situation is Young v. Georgia.

Freedom of speech and illegal trespass to animal facilities

A Kansas law provides criminal penalties for trespassing into “animal facilities” with the intent to harm businesses, including obtaining permission to visit by deception. The law defines an animal facility as any place where animals are raised or raised for food production, agriculture, or research. In 2018, the Animal Law Defense Fund-according to a petition from Kansas Governor Laura Kelly, planning to use deception to enter animal facilities to obtain information about them-sought declaratory judgments and permanent injunctions on the grounds that the law violated the first The freedom of speech clause of the amendment.

The district court agreed, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit confirmed the decision. For the 10th Circuit, the law regulates speech because it excludes consent obtained through deception, and the law implicates speech because “speech creation activities,” such as taking pictures, take place in animal facilities. The Tenth Circuit further ruled that the law discriminates based on opinions.

In her petition, Kelly argued that the Tenth Circuit’s decision was wrong, because deceptive intrusion is not speech, or at least not protected speech, and because the “intentional damage” part of the law is not opinion discrimination. Kelly further claimed that there was a circuit division on this issue, including by referring to the ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, which supported similar laws on agricultural facilities in Iowa.The situation is Kelly v. Animal Law Defense Fund.

These and others Petition this week as follows:

CLMS Management Services Limited Partnership v. Amwins Brokerage of Georgia, LLC
problem: Whether the state law clause in the insurance policy issued by the foreign insurer that prohibits compulsory arbitration is given priority by the foreign insurance company Federal Arbitration Law Or whether McAllen-Ferguson Act Reverse preemption “Federal Arbitration Act.”

Cedado Nuñez v. United States
problem: Are there three methods listed to identify stateless ships Maritime Drug Enforcement Act It is exhaustive.

Lyft, Inc. v. Seifu
problem: Does the Federal Arbitration Act require the implementation of bilateral arbitration agreements, stipulating that workers cannot file representative claims under California’s Private Attorney General Act, thereby precluding claims to the contrary Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles LLC.

Apple v. Qualcomm
problem: Does the licensee have the third qualification to challenge the validity of the patents covered by the license agreement covering multiple patents.

Hammond v. United States
problem: (1) Whether the government agent instructs the wireless operator to send a signal to someone’s mobile phone so that the phone can display the person’s precise location and movement in real time, which is a search in the sense of the Fourth Amendment; (2) Government agents’ comments on regulations Will a well-intentioned but objectively incorrect interpretation prevent the exclusion of evidence contaminated by the Constitution in criminal trials.

Kelly v. Animal Law Defense Fund
problem: Whatever Kansas State Ann. § 47-1827(b), (c) and (d) Violating the Freedom of Speech clause of the First Amendment criminalizes deceptive intrusion into animal facilities with the intent of harming enterprises.

Young v. Georgia
problem: (1) Require death sentence defendants to prove whether their intellectual disability violated the due process clause without reasonable doubt, thereby causing an unacceptable risk that constitutional rights cannot be enforced; (2) Require death sentence defendants to prove their intelligence beyond reasonable doubt Whether the disability violates the Eighth Amendment and creates an unacceptable risk that persons with intellectual disabilities will be executed.

Andrews v. Texas
problem: (1) Whether the Texas State Court rejected the Supreme Court’s Andrews v. Texas, Is fully supported by habeas corpus and trial records, and whether the Texas court ignores the Supreme Court’s grounds Strickland v. Washington(2) Whether the Texas court’s failure to comply with the Supreme Court’s decision conflicts with our vertical gaze decision constitutional system, and must be used appropriately when the court assesses whether the Sixth Amendment is entitled to receive the assistance of a valid lawyer Legal standards have caused widespread confusion and have been violated in death penalty cases.


Source link