Oral argument in the case of Millard v. Rankin, the Colorado case where the registry was found to be cruel and unusual punishment, took place yesterday. The audio for the hearing can be found by clicking on the link below:
Millard-v.-Rankin oral argument
The case documents can be found below and were and hosted compiled courtesy of the Mitchell Hamline School of Law:
- Colorado District Court Opinion | view via Google Scholar
- Defendant-Appellant Merits Brief
- Appellees’ Merits Brief
- Defendant-Appellant’s Reply Brief
- Attorneys General Amicus Brief
- Scholars’ Amicus Brief
- NARSOL Amicus
- Fourth Amended Complaint
- Defendant’s Trial Brief
- Plaintiffs’ Trial Brief
- Plaintiffs’ Rebuttal Closing Argument Brief
Millard v Rankin was decided today, noticed the decision on PACER. Not good. Not sure how to post the link.
Waiting on a decision, in this case, is ridiculous!!! these judges should have a fair and reasonable amount of time to render their decision 2 + years is way too long!!! not to mention 4+ years in MI after the laws were ruled unconstitutional and people are still made to follow them or be jailed!!! something is definitely wrong here. i now think as i type there are too many people make money from these unconstitutional schemes so they need to drag these out as looooooonnnnnnnnnggggggggggggg as possible
Does anyone know when a decision should be made on this case?
likely months from now
Or years.
Will a favorable decision on Millard v. Rankin case have potential implications on a similar type of challenge to Florida statutes which require SO registration? If so, what is the road map for this overall effort?
A favorable decision will provide persuasive authority that might used in our challenges. It might also lay the groundwork for an eventual circuit split and SCOTUS granting cert. Even an unfavorable decision might reveal, for our challenges, pitfalls to avoid, arguments to be refined, etc.
Its not just the US either:
http://www.samoaobserver.ws/en/16_01_2018/local/28878/Sex-Offenders-Registry-signed-into-law.htm
” But the decision is a step in the right direction for Samoa’s fight against repeated sex offenders ”
And I wonder how low or high those percentages are of repeat sexual offenders in Samoa. . . Or Just another country drinking that Kool-aid concocted by the U.S.
Thrown under the bus and run over. Society giddy they have something legally to discrim ate against. Where lawyers are whipping out on their chance to save the United States Constitution.
Some very wise and perceptive assessments below from Dustin, Jason, and BioI57, and others.
Makes me feel better and gives me more confidence that the panel may arrive at a reasonable decision.
So despite my cynicism further down, going to withhold my, ahem, judgement until something is issued.
Assuming the judges are impartial (which half the time is kind of like assuming my dog will get a PhD), it’ll come down to the briefs. Neither lawyer seemed very persuasive, in my opinion. Strikes me as the kind of case where the judges’ minds are already made up and their question were asked specifically support their predetermined opinions.
Don’t recall any point where a judge asked a question that wouldn’t be in the brief anyway. I’d question the competence of either lawyer who didn’t brief what the judges asked.
When I first started reading everyone’s comment on the lawyer I was really disappointed and discouraged. Then I just now listen to the argument myself. There were maybe one or two instances where he didn’t give more information and ask them to go to the briefs. When the judges go to the briefs and do their job this is an easy win. I felt like the lawyer did okay in presenting his case. It’s really not that hard to present. Could he have done better, sure. Did he do a good job, I think so. I have been around a lot of intelligent people in my life and a lot of times it’s hard for them to talk without using uh, um and stuttering. If you listen to what he is saying he is right on point. Again the only thing that I see where anybody could make a point against him is that he did not have the information to orally give the judges when asked but the good thing was he referred them to the briefs and that is their job to read. When they read those as I said the proof is in the pudding!
Anybody know what is going on with the McGuire case in the 11th circuit ? It’s been a while and can’t find anything on it. Not even sure if they even had oral arguments yet.
Here is the appeal :
https://www.mandabusinesslaw.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/5637/2017/09/2017-8-21-Appellants-Reply-to-Appellee-Response-to-Supp-Brief.pdf
and a refresher of the case :
https://www.annistonstar.com/free/as-some-states-reconsider-sex-offender-registries-an-alabama-resident/article_d8f12a3c-699a-11e7-a777-d71fa6cbf90b.html
Mary, I was wondering myself about the McGuire case as well. I can’t find anything on oral arguments and such. If so, then the case seems to be taking longer for some reason.
From what I read, I know that McGuire has a good attorney with an impressive resume. His name is Phil Telfeyan.
https://equaljusticeunderlaw.org/phil-telfeyan-about/
Can anyone find the Law Firm contact information for these bozos? I’d love to send them a link to the comments section to show them how great of a job they did representing essentially & indirectly, 900,000 people.
I always fear that a paramount case will be taken up by a clueless lawyer, like so many of them are (personal experience). Unfortunately, this has proven to be true here.
Appellate courts overturn a district court’s finding of fact infrequently and usually under the clear error standard, which is difficult to meet. Clear error refers to a trial court’s judgment or action that appears unquestionably erroneous to the reviewing/appellate court. However, the fact that there is a clear error may not warrant reversal of the lower court decision.
The reality is that the judges on the panel have had the case for weeks and each judge’s clerks read the briefs and exchange notes between each member on the panel to summarize their view of the case. So, when they come to oral argument, the judges largely already formed an opinion.
Often, the judges will ask softball questions to the “side” that they most agree with in an attempt to persuade the other judges. My take is that when the female judge was asking about recidivism and the effectiveness of the registry, she was trying to lead Milliard’s attorney to say “Yes, recidivism is low and YES the registry is ineffective”. Instead, he pointed to the Amicus brief of the scholars who fully briefed those issues.
Another positive note is how the male judge @28:37 admonishes the attorney for Colorado that she should not expect the court to comment on if the stature is good public policy (to say – justified by the statute).
To address a comment earlier about what it would mean if the Court rejected the District Court’s decison. That decisons could trigger a review by SCOTUS because it would create a circuit split beween theis Circuit and the Sixth Circuit who found that SORNA was punishment and was uncontitutional when applied retroactively; a decison which SCOTUS declined to review.
I could be wrong. I pray I am not.
Let’s just hope the Justices’ read the Amici briefs and decide on them for the win.
FAC thank you for the link. Sorry to say this is exactly NOT the way to present a case to the courts. The attorney for Millard should have been WELL prepared for this. Between the “umm’s”, and “uhh’s” and the stuttering, and stepping on his tongue over and over, I had no idea what he was talking about. How hard is it to answer the simple questions put before him? Maybe the state paid him to screw up, or promised to make sure he never advanced to a higher position than a lower court lawyer. It seemed like he was so afraid to speak, he soiled his pants because I could smell it hear in central Floriduh.
if its “already public information” then why have the registry. Why make us report. Why is it my job to provide due diligence for everyone else and potentially incriminate myself every time I report cause lord knows you forget an email you get 5 years probation with a monitor. (I know a guy so don’t think this is crap) Maybe because if they didn’t coerce us into doing it, them updating anything else once our time is done would violate many more of our rights. Imagine their is no registry the police follow you around discover you have a new email and post it to some site for people to see. Why – this would be the big fat whooping misdemeanor they warn the public against…and something to litigate. This is slavery. Think about it. We are forced to work, pay for, leave our familys and report at our expense. Now if we got paid for this information maybe. We are an unprotected class because after our EOS we have laws that apply to us that no-one else can be charged with. Maybe this is far reaching cause no felons can have a gun but then again it is because if we just didn’t have to have something that is one thing. (avoiding) but they are forcing us to act to move and preform for their own benefit without pay. Forcing us to provide information instead of investigating them selves. Basically we testify every time we go register. Now who else has to testify. Isn’t that in the constitution. Were is our right to remain silent. Maybe im ranting and y’all know the answers to these already and im late on this boat.
man this was bad. I couldn’t even finish the rest at the end because just wow ! He couldn’t tell other punitive effects the registry causes ? It’s practically like reciting the pledge of allegiance at this point after so many years. I even think the judges knew and was trying to subtly help him by prompting him to tell them in his own words…. but they know.
This is what angers me. An important case down the drain because the plaintiff picked out some unprepared average Joe schmoe. I’ve seen better performances from public defenders in a lower state court with cases that are not so important. If those briefs filed don’t help us, then it’ll take some miracle. We shall see – but not hopeful.
” He couldn’t tell other punitive effects the registry causes ? ”
I know John, and to think that would of been the easy part. It almost seems like he didn’t even meet his client or doesn’t even know him. It’s like he walked into some random court room to some random case.
On the basis of these reviews alone, from those who have taken time to listen, Millard is lost.
Judges have to consider the arguments put before them. And Supreme Court statistically is not likely to take this up unless there is an appellate victory on the same issues in a different circuit. Such as the 11th, where FAC lawyers have filed the Ex Post Facto Plus challenge. Which will now be more of a, ahem, challenge, after the likely outcome of Millard.
That is the ripple effect of selecting the wrong lawyer for oral arguments in federal appeals court, or if not preparing for them properly.
FAC, someone, prove me wrong, cheer me up!
This is exactly the danger of coming into court unprepared or out of your league. You run the risk of creating bad precedent.
We strongly discourage members from filing pro se lawsuits to challenge these things because if you mess them up, you mess it up for anyone that comes after you.
well said, FAC.
I agree. Well said.
It’s like 904,000 people retained the same idiot lawyer without even realizing it.
yeah i just did in a reply a little further down. 🙂 I feel your pain though!
Im not so sure her closing statements seemed to let the cat out the bag (finial 5 minutes)
Just fyi in case anyone is curious, this is from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth District in Denver, Co. Case 17-1333.
After listening to the arguments, I couldn’t but notice that when the female judge asked the plaintiff’s attorney about evidence concerning what I interpreted as reoffense rates of those convicted of sex offenses, he briefly pointed to the seventeen scholars amici briefs instead of telling her what he should have been well prepared for, that the reoffense rate of those all across the nation, including Colorado, are very, very low — period.
I got the impression that she didn’t hear from him what she expected him to say. Maybe I got that wrong, but damn, what’s wrong with these attorney’s not wanting to stand up in court and state the obvious — seems like there’s WAY too much deference to the panel of jurists.
Yea he could of told her what she wanted to hear and just kept it short and then refer to the briefs for more lengthy details. I got the impression that he was a bit unprepared with amateurish oratory skills. We’ll have to see what happens. I wonder how long it takes for the court to make a decision ? If anyone knows more or less.
I would hope that the briefs in support somewhere point to studies showing that registries have no appreciable deterrent effect. One judge asked about this and it could have easily been shown by pointing to studies. Counsel for Mr. Millard seemed hesitant or unprepared to show this
I don’t think the attorney for the appellate did pretty good. He sounded like a nervous rookie out of law school. It was pretty brutal to my ears. I think if the judges reverse judge Matsche’s ruling, it’ll be under the premise of ” public safety “.
Anyhow, the plantiffs or appellee can request to the supreme court at that point and they may very well take the case – hopefully. but Jesus! I just hope they don’t use the same attorney to argue. Get the female attorney from the Gundy case, SCOTUS seems to like her and she argues well.
Yeah, I gotta agree with you. It was kinda hard to listen to him but also the court’s recording was average quality. My personal favorite is Katherin Szudy in Ohio vs. Williams and once you’ve heard the best, it’s hard to go back. I try to remind myself, however, that these are specialty/appellate type lawyers and not trial lawyers. With these cases it’s about writing excellent briefs and making good arguments not to mention just being grateful the guy is running with the case all the way! And those judges see past that kinda stuff. They got it. I think we won this. I put that out there to the universe anyway….
i just listened to it again…. ok, he sucks. could he have suggested at least ONE other punishing effect besides going in 4 times a year?! Damn! not feeling so positive….. just have to wait and see.
I remember that case in Ohio. Yes, the attorney was really good. Eloquent and articulate. You are right that once you hear the best, it is hard to go back and anything else would seem sub-par. Writing excellent briefs is an important factor, but I’d have to agree with FAC above when they said ” This is exactly the danger of coming into court unprepared or out of your league. You run the risk of creating bad precedent. ” You have to make sure you get the right lawyer for your case. In another post, I mentioned that it took me 1 year to look for the right lawyer to win my termination of probation case. She was more than prepared – in so much, that at some point I even felt bad for the prosecutor because she was unprepared – I won my motion and the prosecution lost. This was an important case, every moment has to be planned perfectly and prepared.
Hoping that THIS turns out to be the answer!
After listening to the oral arguement, I am hopefu. At least the male judge who spoke last “got it”. All we need is one more judge on the panel to agree and we have another circuit court win.
Wow! maybe it’s me, but that attorney for the plantiffs did horrible. I couldn’t even understand his argument as he was rambling everywhere trying to find his words for his argument. Even the judges at some point were like, that didn’t answer my question. ay ya yai! lol. I hate to say it, but that prosecutor or attorney general presented a more clear and convincing argument than the plaintiffs attorney.
I agree. The first 10 minutes I was rolling my eyes because its the same argument prosecutors present, and then the next 15 minutes I just had to put my head down when he was rambling. Hopefully the filed briefs can give us a boosted help. But as someone else mentioned, a reversal can have us request it to SCOTUS and hopefully they accept to hear it.
Debbie
I agree with you 100% . Not only did he ramble , he did almost no research to get facts to back up his argument of which there are tons of cases but he couldn’t quote one. This is our biggest problem poorly paid and qualified attorneys to argue our cases. He could have argued to have the laws struck down for all offenders had he had his facts in order but he was so ill prepared he was content to just apply it to this single case. We need to make up a web sight with nothing but case arguments and facts that prove our points ,that can be easily accessible to attorneys that when we hear about there pending trials ,they can be referred to it . Do the foot work for them, so they can correctly handle these cases .
How funny, I was just about to find and grab the link on here to listen to the oral arguments. lol.
Thanks for the link FAC.