Reinforcing a Constitutional Right
Share this article
ADVERTISEMENT
(comments below)
Comments
Comments
13 responses to “Reinforcing a Constitutional Right”
-
Another very good post! thanks!
I must plead ignorance on these issues.
I always thought the defendant had a Constitutional right to decide if they would be tried by a Judge or Jury…
Further – when I read of Judges using Sentencing Guidelines – I just assumed it was – all the time …so apparently they’re only doing this when the Jury is not?
thanks again for the informative posts – and patience in dealing with questions.
-
Technically, a judge in Virginia can set aside a jury’s sentence recommendation, as I recall, but it doesn’t happen often.
I think this will indeed be a major change, producing different outcomes. Whether that is good or bad I will leave to others, but I would expect far fewer jury trials. More experienced legal minds need to advise how this interacts with all the other things coming out of this special session, especially the move back to a more active parole and more generous “good time” calculation. One piece of the puzzle means little until you assemble it with the other pieces.
-
I was also wondering about how the other proposed changes, if passed, would interact. I have learned over the years that the criminal justice system is a complex one. A change in one element will have rippling effects, some of them unexpected or unpredictable. It will take several years to discern the effects of whatever is enacted during this spasm of criminal justice reform.
-
-
In 2002, SCOTUS held that the Sixth Amendment requires a jury to find the aggravating factors necessary for imposing the death penalty and not the judge. Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002).
-
HB 5007 maintains that provision.
-
-
Hmmm, well if we can’t trust Joe Morrissey to bring “equity” to our criminal justice system who can we trust? What with his discerning, discriminating legal mind always finding a way to “fight for you.”
This is sarcasm- it being 2020 I thought I should add this disclaimer.
-
That can’t be the same Joe Morrissey who is a convicted pedophile who’s been arrested five times, disbarred after his law license was suspended twice, and indicted on federal charges of possession and distribution of child pornography.
The other Joe Morrisey also plead guilty to a misdemeanor count of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, as well as spent a year in prison, with six months suspended, after being caught having a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old assistant who worked at his law firm.
That Joe Morrisey would have no chance to be elected to the Senate of Virginia. If he was, the other Democrats in the Senate would never follow his lead on criminal justice matters.
Same disclaimer.
-
Despite his tempermental outbursts, it is obvious that Morrissey has a good legal mind. Yes, he did plead guilty to contributing to the delinquency of a minor involving a 17-year old assistant in his office. For what he is worth, he did marry that young woman and they now have three children. Marriage and a few more years under his belt seemed to have matured Morrissey.
He certainly has not had any problem getting elected. His constituents re-elected him to the House after his conviction. Then he bumped off a senior Democratic senator in a primary.
My question is: Now that he has lost his law license (for the second time), how does he make a living?
-
-
-
Dick, you wrote:
“Rather, the system, they predict, will reach a new equilibrium, with Commonwealth’s attorneys offering plea deals that are more in line with sentencing guidelines.”
Are you suggesting that Commonwealth’s Attorneys currently offer defense attorneys plea deals that exceed sentencing guidelines if the defendant went to trail? And they accept them?
-
I can’t speak from any direct experience or research. The implication of the defense attorneys interviewed for the newspaper article is that the plea agreement offers are often higher than what could be expected. If they don’t exceed the guidelines, they are certainly in the higher end of the range recommended by the guidelines. They accept them because they know that, if the CA insists on a jury trial, the jury sentence is likely to be even higher.
-
-
As a former prosecutor, I think this is a good law. Juries are all over the place with sentencing. There is really no way to read them. They might impose a 100 year sentence or an acquittal for the same case.
Now, extend the power to judges in civil cases. -
The more stringently codified, the better.
What would be ideal is the jury determines the “facts found” as well as the verdict, the judge applies the sentencing guidelines, and let the defendant seek relief from the sentence, within the guidelines, given mitigating circumstances to a sight unseen board.
The problem with juries simply determining a verdict is that if, in the future, evidence or testimony is found to be prejudicial/false, then having the jury determine what facts led to the verdict would be important in upholding or overturning a verdict and ordering a new trial.
For example, if the jury convicted largely based on “bullet alloy analysis” (something that has been shown to be overblown science), it would help to know that. Likewise, if the jury discarded testimony as false and convicted, then later the witness recants, who cares? It would certain save trouble.
Of course, you might get fewer convictions if the jury is forced to say why…
-
Oh, and on an entirely different subject, if a prosecutor is shown to have violated Brady in a capital murder case that is later overturned because of that violation, an attempted murder charge, or two, would go a long way to cleaning up some cesspools in the legal system. Not that any of the fine Commonwealth of Virginia prosecutors would ever withhold exculpatory evidence…
Cops aren’t the only ones who can kill someone using illegal force and they shouldn’t be the only ones to face the consequences.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.