From SCOTUSBlog:
In United States v. Haymond, the justices will weigh in on a challenge to the constitutionality of a federal law that requires additional prison time for sex offenders who violate the terms of their supervised release.
The defendant in the case is Andre Haymond, who was convicted on child pornography charges in 2010. A federal court sentenced Haymond to 38 months in prison, followed by 10 years of supervised release.
In 2015, Haymond was charged with violating his supervised release by (among other things) possessing pornography and child pornography, failing to tell the probation office about computers that he owned and repeatedly failing to attend sex-offender treatment sessions. A district court sentenced him to five additional years in prison, followed by five more years of supervised release.
Haymond appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, which vacated the new prison sentence and sent his case back for resentencing. The court of appeals concluded that the federal law governing the revocation of supervised release and requiring additional prison time for sex offenders who violate the terms of their supervised release is unconstitutional, for two reasons: It takes away the sentencing judge’s discretion and imposes additional punishment on sex offenders based on new conduct, for which they had not been convicted by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
The federal government went to the Supreme Court over the summer, asking the justices to review the 10th Circuit’s ruling. The government told the court that the part of the law that the lower court struck down plays “an important role in protecting the public from harm,” and today the justices agreed to take up the case.
Be careful what you wish for. IMHO as a layman, I think Haymond will be given a much longer sentence than five years if this violation is treated as a new charge. Federal sentences for CP are known to be excessively cruel and unusual, averaging 139 months (11.5 years):
https://theappeal.org/philadelphia-media-slam-newly-elected-da-krasner-for-firings-but-house-cleaning-advances-his-f2da076ffb06/
It sure would be nice if these cases going to the high courts were not for people that affirm the widespread fear and belief that everyone is so damn dangerous.
I’m not a lawyer and don’t profess to be. I spent two years running a prison law library while I was incarcerated and particularly focused on probation law. Take the below accordingly.
The rule of thumb in Georgia at least is that when parolees or probationers catch new charges (as opposed to PO violations), the state can proceed either as a violation or new crime, but not both. In my experience, they’ll only proceed as a new crime if there’s less than a year or two on paper (depending on circumstances). Ordinarily, they’ll just revoke probation. Mind you, that’s just what Georgia law says; what’s actually done is often quite different. (More often than not, they’ll sit on the new charges until release is pending, then push them as a new charge).
It looks to me like the feds just want to add time past the original sentence completion date based on new charges. 99% certain they can’t do that without violating those pesky constitutional rights, like right to an attorney and proof beyond reasonable doubt, that don’t apply to probation/parole revocation proceedings.
Pretty sure the law the feds rely on in that case can’t stand, but I’ve been wrong before.
Dear Dustin, I too am no lawyer. Nor do I profess to be. But like you I spent five years running a federal prison’s law library during which time I did little more than study federal habeas corpus law and post conviction relief law. That being said, a lot of us have spent much more time studying law than actually practicing it. There are nuances we miss compared to actual lawyers. But when it comes to experience in living as a prisoner and probationer, not many lawyers have that experience. That’s why I think this group is so vital…to share experiences, research, education and training to make solid arguments and fight for our “pesky” rights. In my experience, the feds view the Constitution and it’s appended Bill of Rights as a source of unlimited power…even though it is really our source of rights, privileges, and immunities for which we must fight. I am encouraged by the 10th Circuit’s decisions in Haymond. And like you, and probably like so many of us, I’ve been wrong before too. With the little hope I have left, I do hope SCOTUS will affrim the 10th Circuit and give all of us binding precedent across the Land that limits the prosecutions power rather than expand it. Thanks for your comments and thanks for all the lawyers and nonlawyers alike who fight for us.
Damn! they just keep coming in towards SCOTUS!
I love it ! Hopefully the Colorado case makes it there too. That would make my year.
@Alex
I agree, agree and agree! That would make me extremely happy.
“The government told the court that the part of the law that the lower court struck down plays “an important role in protecting the public from harm,” and today the justices agreed to take up the case.”
Not sure how anyone with a brain can justify ‘public harm’ if this person is viewing images that are Free and IN THE PAST, so in other words, not ‘Fueling Demand for any Market’, contrary to what the less knowledgeable people love to claim on this topic. It’s been shown via research that such material, at least in 2 countries has led to LESS hands-on offenses because it provides people with an odd-fetish an outlet.
I would love to see them prove how this type of offender, the lowest risk level, poses a ‘Risk to the public’. I cannot wait to watch this show. Get the popcorn ready.
This case is only about sentencing rules and circumventing due process. If you’re expecting them to go anywhere close to the weird reality you described you’re going to be very disappointed.
I’m familiar with the Haymond case. It is favorable to sex offender’s on a few constitutional grounds. The Tenth Circuit is pretty conservative. It’s also Justice Gorsuchs former bench. No wonder the govt wanted to seek review by SCOTUS. It will be very interesting to watch given that there is now a conservative majority on SCOTUS.