Yes this is an important one – so many (too many) cases are decided by plea. Mandatory sentences create an injustice system that forces people to give up their right to trial and also forces many people to plead guilty when in essence they are not. It happens every day. So this case will address whether a person that pleas out is still able to challenge the Constitutionality of the law? Seems like a no-brainer to me.

Better perhaps, but not easier because you would ha e to first get a court to change its mind because, as we have been told, being locked up for life in a loony bin after you get out of prison is not punishment

The issue in Class is: Whether a guilty plea inherently waives a defendant’s right to challenge the constitutionality of his statute of conviction.

The Karsjens case was not heard because of the way the case was presented. The question was: “Whether the district court properly determined that Minnesota’s sex offender civil commitment statute violates substantive due process both facially and as applied.”

The 8th Circuit said basically -“you have no claim to freedom because you are not a “free person” do to the fact that you are under mental health care and have been deem a danger to others”.

An 8th Amendment “Cruel and Unusual” question would have been better in Karsjens rather than a 5th or 14th Amendment “Due Process” Claim

There’s plenty of money. It’s a captive audience.