SCOTUS to hear oral argument on sex offender case
Next week, a “sex offender” case will come for oral arguments before the Supreme Court. The case is US. v Haymond and deals with the standard of proof required before imposing a sanction. If you recall a few weeks ago, we told you that in Florida, registration violations are strict liability (you don’t have to ‘knowingly or willfully’ commit them in order to be punished for violating them), while probation violations require knowing violation. This case takes it one step further.
The Adam Walsh Act mandates a person required to register that has his supervision revoked for a crime that carries a prison term of longer than a year, must return to prison for a minimum mandatory term of at least 5 years and possibly life. The issue is; the standard of proof for revocation of probation is “preponderance of the evidence” while the standard of proof for a criminal conviction is “beyond a reasonable doubt”.
In Haymond, the Defendant was on sex offender probation when he was accused of committing another crime. The court concluded by a “preponderance of the evidence” that he violated the terms of his supervised release, but also said that in a criminal trial, with a jury the government would have been required to make its findings “beyond a reasonable doubt” and the United States would have lost.
Haymond went back to prison for 5 years, followed by 5 years of probation and appealed. The 10th Circuit found in his favor and found the provision unconstitutional the government petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case and they will next week.
Even if we are not on probation/supervised release, because the stakes are so high and scrutiny so tight for anyone on the registry, this is an important case to watch.
Discover more from Florida Action Committee
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Link: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-10th-circuit/1872680.html
Points of interest: “we conclude that § 3583(k) is unconstitutional because it changes the mandatory sentencing range to which a defendant may be subjected, based on facts found by a judge, not by a jury, and because it punishes defendants for subsequent conduct rather than for the original crime of conviction.”
I have a feeling that Kavanaugh and Thomas are going to come down hard against any relief for ANYONE accused of sexual offenses. It’s going to show forth the ultimate hypocrisy of the new SCOTUS. It will be a writ-larger replay of the Elliot Spitzer scandal, when he was prosecuting and jailing people for doing what he was privately doing himself. The corruption occurs in both political parties and is endemic in any human culture.
I was almost convinced that the amici brief from the AG’s of the states was going to sink this case, BUT, then I read the brief of the respondent and noted that the law firm representing the case is Sidley& Austin plus the law school of Northwestern Univ. Chicago.
Well, both sides have compelling reasons. Having a husband on the registry and also a few months away from an early release (so stated on his papers) I agree that this could have a very real impact on Florida’s strict liability scheme. If only…..
Interesting
Question? I was originally convicted of a misdemeanor offence in Kansas , which you could be convicted of with a preponderance of the evidence. So was told by my court appointed attorney that they wouldn’t believe me over them so I should take a plea deal. Which I did.
Now I live in Missouri which has changed there laws several times in the past 23yr. So Now what I was accused of then is considered a felony in Missouri. Which you can only be accused of with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
Had I had the same laws now as I had then I never would have plead out nor would I have been convicted.
Do I have a case?
You will need to ask an attorney. FAC is not a law firm. We are not licensed, nor qualified to provide legal advise regarding anyone’s individual case.
Yeah the beyond a reasonable doubt is for all criminal charges across the US. If someone told you that you could be convicted on anything else you took terrible advice.
The preponderance of evidence standard in probation revocation basically means that the accused has to prove his innocence. The fact that the PO made an arrest in the first place is enough preponderance as far as most judges are concerned. Judges very rarely rule against their own POs, for whatever reason.
I know a guy in prison that caught a new charge (vehicle theft) while on probation on drug charges. The State decided to prosecute the new charge because his probation was to expire a little over a year later. He wanted to go to trial – he was at work during the time frame when the car was stolen. After a few attempts to get him to plea out, the State dropped the case. The same day, the PO entered a petition to revoke for failure to report law enforcement contact. Apparently, he was expected to use his one phone call at the jail to contact his PO to report that he’d been arrested. Sounds pretty thin to me, but the judge agreed with the PO (shocking, ain’t it?) and revoked the balance.
In Georgia (and elsewhere, I’m sure) when parolees and probationers catch another charge, the State is supposed to prosecute it as either a new crime or a violation, but not both. But they always seem to find ways around it. I wonder if this case will have any impact on that practice.
Preponderance of the evidence means the State’s burden of proof is “more likely than not”. Beyond a reasonable doubt means the State’s burden of proof is MUCH higher.
I’m aware of the legal definition. But in practice, a probationer still has to prove his innocence. And even if he does, in all likelihood the judge will rule against him anyway. Again, judges very rarely rule against their own POs.
In Florida where judges are elected, decisions are based on political gain as opposed to facts.
I’m sure there are a few judges out there who don’t have an agenda for moving up in the ranks. However, I believe the election process itself will still have an effect on overall performance.