Over Alito's Fuming Dissent, Gorsuch and the Liberals Protect the Right to Trial by Jury

[babylonsister]

Over Alito’s Fuming Dissent, Gorsuch and the Liberals Protect the Right to Trial by Jury

By Mark Joseph Stern
June 26, 2019
4:22 PM


The constitutional right to trial by jury won a significant victory at the Supreme Court on Wednesday that once again brought Justice Neil Gorsuch together with the court’s liberal wing. Gorsuch’s plurality decision in United States v. Haymond places new, important limits on the government’s ability to extend the sentences of certain offenders without a jury’s input. It may be the first tremor in a coming Sixth Amendment earthquake. The remaining conservative justices seem to think so: Justice Samuel Alito’s apoplectic dissent warned that Gorsuch is preparing to demolish the federal scheme that Congress cooked up to let judges imprison offenders for longer than any jury ever permitted.

Alito is probably exaggerating—but even if he’s right, it’s about time SCOTUS scrutinized the “supervised release” system at issue in Haymond. Congress created this system after it abolished parole for federal defendants in 1984. Here’s how it works: Upon conviction, offenders are sentenced to a term of imprisonment and, after that, a period of supervised release. During this stretch of conditional freedom, offenders must abide by certain terms like drug testing. If they violate the terms, they can be sent back to prison for the remainder of their supervised release.

The law in Haymond altered this arrangement with grave constitutional consequences. It first states that offenders convicted of certain sex offenses who violate their supervised release must be imprisoned. So far, so good. But instead of sending these individuals back to prison for their original conviction, the statute compels judges to impose additional prison time for the new offense. Judges may find these individuals guilty of a new offense under a “preponderance of the evidence” standard, not the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard typically required by due process. And judges make this finding without a jury’s involvement.

Andre Haymond’s case illustrates this scheme in action. At age 18, Haymond was convicted of possessing several images of child pornography. A judge sentenced him to a 38-month prison term, followed by 10 years of supervised release. After Haymond was released from prison, government agents accused him of possessing additional child pornography. He contested their claim in a proceeding that poked many holes in the government’s case. The judge announced that “f this were a criminal trial and the Court were the jury, the United States would have lost.” But under the lenient standard prescribed by the law, the judge found it “more likely than not” that Haymond had downloaded the images. Under the law at issue, this finding required the judge to sentence Haymond to more time in prison—five years to life.

more...

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/06/alito-haymond-gorsuch-supreme-court-dissent-jury-trial.html

[Polybius]

1. Gorsuch is no liberal though

He's pretty libertarian. He also appears to be a "States Rights" extremist, and will most certainly strike down Roe vs. Wade. He dissented in the states vs the liquor sales ruling today.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142333859

[qazplm135]

6. he's more or less Scalia

an asshole who in one narrow area works for our side (certain criminal justice cases).

Scalia was pretty favorable to the accused in 4th amendment cases for example.

[Renew Deal]

3. I don't understand how this is a 5-4 decision

It has to be one or the other.

[unblock]

7. 5-4 makes sense to me

the right wing is fairly extreme in viewing the government as having considerable powers over the accused and especially over the convicted, so no surprise they view a cursory review an light standard as sufficient to compel further imprisonment.

the left wing cares about due process and the rights of the accused, so no surprise they want to ensure at least that a jury is involved.

gorsuch is the only surprise in this one.

[elleng]

4. "Only a jury, acting on proof beyond a reasonable doubt, may take a person's liberty,"

'Gorsuch' began. “That promise stands as one of the Constitution’s most vital protections against arbitrary government.” In our system, juries “exercise supervisory authority over the judicial function by limiting the judge’s power to punish.”



P.S. Alito's the worst, imo.

[Me.]

5. Maybe, Given How Some Judges Have Been Sentencing White Men Lately

especially against POC and victims of rape, juries will be more clear-eyed.