SCOTUS: United States v. Haymond: a win for the registrant
Andre Haymond was convicted of possessing child pornography. After serving a prison sentence of 38 months, and while on supervised release, Mr. Haymond was again found with what appeared to be child pornography.
A district judge, acting without a jury, found by a preponderance of the evidence that Mr. Haymond knowingly downloaded and possessed child pornography.
The Supreme Court held that only a jury, acting on proof beyond a reasonable doubt,may take a person’s liberty.
Read the opinion here: United States v. Haymond
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I came across this article on another site. At the time it had 800+ comments so I decided to see what was being said.
I was pleased to read that the majority (19 out of 20 maybe) of those posting were commenting that this was the correct course of action for this case as laid out by the Constitution. The fact that this guy was on probation fur a sex crime was irrelevant as far as the comments went nor that he “may” have downloaded more illegal pics.
Might be the fear machine is losing its grip?
What about civil commitment? They learn things about someone after the fact or find new evidence and confine a person indifferently without a jury’s decision. How is it any different?
Civil commitment does not require the accusation of a new crime. Sometimes it does not even require new facts of any kind. So this case did not cover civil commitment.
I suspect SCOTUS already has issued a ruling that in effect has allowed civil commitment, but I’m not sure what case.
@Candice,
The difference is like the word tomato.Is it pronounced tomAtoe? or is it pronounced toMAHtoe…
Regardless of which it’s still the same thing. Those in power will tell you that civil is different from criminal in that um… Well, there’s no trial, no new crime, this isn’t punishment, it’s for the greater good… and other nonsense like that.
As far as this car goes, he was basically convicted for a new crime that he was never charged for.
So enlight of this case. Can it be used in the export facto challenge? My thinking is this. If one was sentenced before the registry came out and is now forced to register which has liberty issues, can we be put on the registry without a jury saying so. It would seem according to my layman’s perspective that Gorsuch would say no?
Just random idea from someone who is tired of being tired.
would be great, but as we all know the registry is not punitive.
Our laws are so convoluted that even the people in the ‘law business’ are confused. This is what happens when opinion rather than the Constitution is used to determine an individual’s freedom. I have never been in favor of ‘case law’. If one judge gets it wrong an injustice can be perpetuated for years before it is corrected. The Constitution should have to be cited in every judgment. I guess if one is in the ‘law business’ it’s job security for many.
I agree with you for sure on the constitutional aspect. My question however is that not the job of the judge, to hear the case and then apply the law as he or she interprets it. Then if two different courts come up with differing opinions then the SCOTUS who should be constitutional experts and advocates settle difference?
This is why in my opinion we need judges who are strict constitutionalits.
Sounds to me like the short version of the opinion is that the court cannot essentially try, convict, and further sentence a probationer on a new charge under the preponderance of evidence standard. It can still revoke probation, but not add more time unless the new charge is prosecuted as a new charge, complete with the reasonable doubt standard and full observation of the accused’s constitutional rights.
At issue was whether or not the court could add more time to the original sentence on a preponderance of evidence of a new crime. The majority said no.
FAC, please correct me if I’m wrong.
You are correct!
Does this also mean any and all trials that were decided by a Judge instead of a Jury?
I’m not following what you are asking.
I think what he is asking is that if your case had a Judge only trial and not a jury can it be overturned?
This had to do with a probation violation, not a new case.
That is the key point! The last two sentences of 3583(k) were the object of the decision. The first sentence says; “[i]f a defendant (on supervised release) required to register under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act commits any criminal offense….” One has not committed a “criminal offense” until until he has been convicted through a jury trial, a plea or a bench trial. In those proceedings, all constitutional due process provisions apply.
Any violation that does not rely on the finding of a new criminal offense can be handled by a judge as usual. No problem there.
Oops, the words “on supervised release” should have been in [ ] not ( ).