On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in United States v Haymond. As we have mentioned several times the background of Haymond’s case, we won’t go into full detail. However, because of a previous sex offense, Haymond was violated under 18 USC 3583(k) which provides for a mandatory minimum five year violation because he had additional CP on his phone and possibly up to life.Continue reading “Supreme Court Claims Certain Violations May Be Unconstitutional”
Later this month, the Supreme Court is set to hear arguments in United States v Haymond, a case that tests the legality of increased mandatory minimums and maximums for sex offenders who are accused of committing another sex offense while on release. Haymond had the misfortune to get malware on his smartphone, which gave him all sorts of nasty little goodies, including child pornography. As the evidence was pretty conclusive that he did not deliberately download these files, the Government tried to convict him through the back door of revoking his supervised release.Continue reading “The Import of Haymond”
We have a lot to talk about in this week’s newsletter. First off, as we mentioned last week, there was a case in Illinois in which an inmate at a halfway house had filed a 2241 motion trying to get his release from halfway house due to the good time fix. Unfortunately, the court denied him relief. In it, they stated that section 102(b)(2) of the First Step Act states that this subsection will not go into effect until after the Attorney General releases the risk assessment system. Continue reading “PREA, First Step and Other News”
First off, we are trying something new. Each week, we plan on sending out with one of our posts a list of all Supreme Court cases that were granted in the past week, as well as each one that is set for arguments sometime that week. While we don’t have a synopsis of what the case is about (yet), we can at least let you know if a case you had been monitoring has been granted cert or has been argued before the court.