We post news and comment on federal criminal justice issues, focused primarily on trial and post-conviction matters, legislative initiatives, and sentencing issues.

‘DOG BITES MAN’ AT SUPREME COURT

In journalism, a “dog bites man” story is one that is completely expected and ho-hum. The Supreme Court’s handed down a decision like that last week in Timbs v. Indiana, holding that the 8th Amendment’s ban on excessive fines applied to the states through the 14th Amendment.

SCOTUS did not find that Indiana’s forfeiture of Mr. Timbs’ $42,000 Land Rover for the sale of a couple of hundred dollars’ worth of heroin was excessive. Instead, the case was remanded for the trial court to figure that out. The Feds already operate under the 8th Amendment, which has had limited effect on federal forfeitures.

Ohio State University law professor Doug Berman noted in his Sentencing Law and Policy blog that during the Timbs oral argument, some Justices seemed to struggle with the notion that forfeiture of an SUV for selling drugs may violate the 8th Amendment, but forfeiture of a lifetime of liberty for possessing drugs does not.

Today, SCOTUS will hear oral argument in two significant supervised release cases, In Mont v. United States, a 6th Circuit case asking whether the supervised release term for one offense is tolled under 18 USC 3624(e) while a releasee is locked up in pretrial confinement for a new criminal case. In United States v. Haymond, SCOTUS will review a 10th Circuit decision that 18 USC 3583(k), which requires additional prison time for sex offenders who violate supervised release, is unconstitutional, because it imposes additional punishment based on new conduct for which the offenders have not been convicted beyond a reasonable doubt.

United States v. Davis will decide whether 18 USC 924(c)(3)(B) is unconstitutional. SCOTUS has set April 17, 2019, for oral argument. Alas, the government’s request for certiorari in United States v. Wheeler, which was relisted for conference last Friday, was again relisted for March 1st. Wheeler asks whether a prisoner whose 28 USC 2255 motion challenging a statutory minimum was denied based on current circuit precedent may later seek habeas relief in a 28 USC 2241 petition (allowed by the 2255(e) “escape clause”) on the ground that the circuit’s interpretation of the statutory minimum has changed.

Sentencing Law and Policy, Why I am certainly hoping, but not really expecting, Timbs to end up being a big deal (Feb. 22)

Timbs v Indiana, Case No. 17-1091, 2019 U.S. LEXIS 1350 (Sup.Ct. Feb. 20, 2019)

Mont v. United States, Case No. 17-8995 (Supreme Court oral argument Feb. 26, 2019)

United States v. Haymond, Case No. 17-1672 (Supreme Court oral argument Feb. 26, 2019)

United States v. Davis, Case No. 18-431 (Supreme Court oral argument Apr. 17, 2019)

United States v. Wheeler, Case No. 18-420 (relisted for Supreme Court conference on March 1, 2019)

– Thomas L. Root