Supreme Court hits and misses in two criminal cases

Judge Brett Kavanaugh of the Supreme Court stands before the ceremonial oath at the White House on October 8, 2018.

Judge Brett Kavanaugh of the Supreme Court at the swearing ceremony at the White House in 2018. (The Associated Press)

Supreme Court on Monday Amendment Article 4 Prohibition of “unjustified search and seizure” Arbitrage Police officers cannot enter the house and seize property without a warrant as part of the so-called “community care” role. However, in another ruling issued that day, the court said: 6th correction..

In the Article 4 amendment proceeding, the court expressed concern that his wife could commit suicide, and then Edward Caniglia, a Rhode Island man whose gun was confiscated by police who entered his home without a warrant. Has ruled in favor of.

Writing for the court, Judge Clarence Thomas made an exception to the so-called “community care” for warrant requirements — 1973 decision About Searching for Car Rental Saved — Not as good as searching for a home. Thomas said the court said that the “very core” of the protection of Article 4 of the Constitutional Amendment was “the right of men to retreat to their homes and no unjustified government invasion.”

Unfortunately, the majority of courts were less sensitive to constitutional rights in another new decision, including jury rights.

Last year, the court decided to require a state court jury in the Sixth Amendment. Must be unanimous When they convict a defendant of a serious crime. But in the case of Thedrick Edwards, who was convicted in 2007 by a unanimous jury of armed robbery, rape, and kidnapping in a 6-3 vote on Monday, the judge decided to apply the decision retroactively. I refused. Edwards was trying to overturn his belief in the progress of the Federal Habeas Corpus.

Write for the majority, Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, said that under the Supreme Court’s case, the decision to publish a “new procedural rule” was not retroactive in cases like Edwards. Kavanaugh’s opinion is 1989 decision Allows retroactiveness “Rules of the basin“For criminal procedures related to basic impartiality.

Kavanaugh justified the decision, claiming that retroactive application of the 2020 court’s decision “could overturn decades of conviction” in a state that granted a unanimous jury verdict. .. But that’s a matter of speculation.

More importantly, defendants such as Edwards should not be denied a new trial because they were convicted before the court ruled that unanimity was essential. Judge Elena Kagan states that in a strong dissenting opinion. Opposition from two or more juries. “

This story was originally Los Angeles Times..

Posted on