Comments on: Supreme Court Update

By: Bobby

Bobby — Thu, 22 Mar 2018 21:23:54 +0000

so please remind me again which two sex offender cases are we watching again?. and if they weren’t granted were they denied? again which two were they again thank you.

By: Douglas

Douglas — Thu, 22 Mar 2018 17:43:51 +0000

I just heard about this Snyder vs doe case and was wondering how this may effect Florida’s registration laws. I was convicted of CSC1 & 2 in February of 1992 and did 13 1/2 years. I was told I only had to register for 25 years from the commission of my crime. I was told by some people in Florida that if I’m removed from Michigan’s list I wouldn’t have to anywhere else, but then others have told me it doesn’t make any difference I would still have to register in Florida. I would be willing to accept any help in this matter because I’m homeless because of these law and need to have some clarification on what I can do.

By: Florida Action Committee

Florida Action Committee — Fri, 29 Sep 2017 18:19:31 +0000

In reply to john schultz.

We welcome all the guidance and input. Believe me… I hope the MN case gets picked up! That at least can be reversed and not left intact. If Snyder remains intact it’s still a “good” precedent.
If there’s a chance of it being picked up, even a remote chance, we’ll keep our fingers crossed for it.

By: DW

DW — Fri, 29 Sep 2017 18:04:06 +0000

In reply to G.W.. Thanks very much GW!

By: john schultz

john schultz — Fri, 29 Sep 2017 18:00:32 +0000

Hi everybody. Im not a know it all so please understand Im only trying to be helpful. It is still a 50% chance the SCOTUS will grant cert. to Snyder v. Does, as well as the MN civil commitment case. In fact, if I were betting Id say it is likely, esp. for the MN case. Recent changes at the SCOTUS make it necessary for petitions to get RELISTED for a second conference. Since 2013 about 90% of all grants have been relisted at least once. Only a very tiny 3% or so of all cert. grants are made without relisting, such as what we observed following the long conference and the 11 cases granted cert. Those 11 are the freaks of SCOTUS. Next week the Court will publish the cases that are relisted for next conference, and there will be alot of them because this is how the Court works now.

By: Bobby

Bobby — Fri, 29 Sep 2017 17:48:39 +0000

I have another question, my conviction was in 1992 in Michigan ,and Michigan did not have a registry back then, nor was I told by the judge I had to register. I was released on12-15-1994, and off parole in 1996 . I was placed on the registry in 1995 to 25 years, and then the power’s that be, changed it to life. Then a few years ago they even changed our registration dates to our conviction dates, so according to that I already have my 25 years in, but since the registry did not exist in 1992 ,nor was I told by a judge I had to register shouldn’t I be one of the people removed from the registry all together, since that would be a violation of due process or something.

By: G.W.

G.W. — Fri, 29 Sep 2017 16:05:17 +0000

In reply to DW.

Follow this PDF link to McGuire v. Strange, it’s the Alabama case in the 11th. http://equaljusticeunderlaw.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Supplemental-Brief.pdf

By: DW

DW — Fri, 29 Sep 2017 12:36:12 +0000

In reply to Bobby.

Bobby,

Thanks for that info. The term “denied” was rescinded in a stupid question I asked, so you are correct; FAC has not said cert. denied. I got all excited there for a minute.

Respectfully
DW

By: Florida Action Committee

Florida Action Committee — Fri, 29 Sep 2017 12:31:46 +0000

In reply to Arnold.

This is the idea of an “Ex Post Facto” challenge. Government cannot retroactively apply a harsher punishment to a crime committed on an earlier offense date.
Problem is; this only applies to “punishment” and the Supreme Court in 2003 said the registry was not punishment.

Last year the 6th Circuit ruled it was. Similar cases are pending in other Circuits.

By: Florida Action Committee

Florida Action Committee — Fri, 29 Sep 2017 12:28:52 +0000

In reply to Bobby.

If you read our previous comment. I wrote that I want to be very clear and careful in explaining that it wasn’t denied. There was no denial issued.
We wrote that it was not on the order of accepted cases that were accepted.

As you indicated, there is a “relatively small” chance it will be held over for reconsideration on the next conference.

Think of it as getting into college… there are thousands of applicants and few get accepted. They post the list of “accepted” students on a specific day. Snyder was not on that list. Like a student who didn’t get accepted – there’s a small chance that student may make a “wait list” or was inadvertently omitted from the accepted list.

Until an order comes back saying certiorary was denied, nobody is saying it was denied. It was just not one of the 11 cases accepted.