Mit Case Brief

8/2/2019 Mit Case Brief

1/24

Title and Citation

Ewing v. California

(538 U.S. 11 (2003), 123 S. Ct.1179, 155 L. Ed. 2d 108, 2003 U.S.)

Facts of the Case
http://www.lexisnexis.com/lawschool/research/Default.aspx?e=&pp=002&com=2&searchtype=get&search=538+U.S.%2011&autosubmit=yes&com=2&topframe=on&powernav=on&tocdisplay=off&cookie=yes&ORIGINATION_CODE=00344http://www.lexisnexis.com/lawschool/research/Default.aspx?e=&pp=002&com=2&searchtype=get&search=538+U.S.%2011&autosubmit=yes&com=2&topframe=on&powernav=on&tocdisplay=off&cookie=yes&ORIGINATION_CODE=00344


2/24

Petitioner Ewing has been charged with a felony of stealing three golf clubs worth

$399.00 a piece from a sports store. He is charged under the three strikes law of

California. The judges took note of the substantial history of the Defendant and

sentenced him to a 25 year to life sentence in prison. Before this incident, the

Defendant had, in 1984, he pleaded guilty to theft. In 1988, Defendant was convicted

of felony grand theft auto. In 1990, Defendant was convicted of petty theft with a

prior. In 1992, he was convicted of battery. One month later, Defendant was

convicted of theft. In January of 1993, he was convicted of burglary. In February

1993, he was convicted of possessing drug paraphernalia. In July 1993, Defendant

was convicted of appropriating lost property. In September 1993, he was convicted

of unlawfully possessing a firearm and trespassing. And there other petty crimes he

committed.

Prior to this incident, the defendant had been charged with four serious or violent

felonies for the three burglaries and the robbery in the Long Beach apartment

complex. According to Californias three-strike law, Defendant was

Sentenced to a 25 year to life sentence in prison.

The Vote


3/24

What is the vote in this case? How many justices are in the majority? Who is the

author of the majority opinion? What justices join that opinion? Who offers

concurring or dissenting opinions?

The vote was; No, it does not violate the 8th amendment, and Gary Ewing should be

charged to a 25 to life sentence in prison.

There are 4 justices in the majority.

Justice John Paul Stevens is the author of the majority opinion. Justice David Souter

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justice Stephen Breyer join the majority opinion of

the three strikes law isnt cruel and unusual and therefore the defendant should

be sent to a 25 to life sentence in jail.

Justice Antonin Scalia offers the concurring opinion. J. Scalia believes that the

principle of proportionality cannot be intelligently applied. Certainly, in the

present case, a sentence of 25 to life is not proportionate to the theft of three golf

clubs, and the sentence of 25 to life is cruel and unusual.

The Law and/or Constitutional Provisions at Issue


4/24

The Supreme Courtis assigned to interpret the law deciding Californias Three

Strikes law. A defendant with two or more "strike" priors faces a minimum of 25-

years-to-life in prison. He earns no time off for good behavior or working. After

serving the determinant minimum amount of time, he is then eligible for, but not

guaranteed, parole. Whether and when an eligible life prisoner is paroled is up to

the Board of Prison Terms (BPT). The BPT is made up of members appointed by the

Governor and tend to be very conservative about paroling eligible life inmates. Since

no 3-Strike life prisoner has become eligible for parole and none will until 2019, no

one knows how the BPT will deal with 3-Strike inmates. Three Strikes laws are

legislation enacted by many states that target repeat offenders. After three separate

felony convictions, or "strikes," convicts are "kicked out" of society - that is, they're

sent to jail for life. The reasoning behind these laws is that those who repeatedly

commit felonies likely pose a serious threat to society and should be imprisoned for

the greater good.

The Legal Questions


5/24

Does Californias three strikes law violate the Eighth Amendments ban on cruel and

unusual punishments, which prohibits sentences that are disproportionate to the

crime committed?

Whether the Eighth Amendment prohibits the State of California from sentencing a

repeat felon to a prison term of 25 years to life under the States Three Strikes

law?

It is the responsibility of state legislature to put deterrent penalties into place?

Does the Eighth Amendment prohibit CA's "three strikes" law?

The Opinion of the Court:


6/24

The opinion of the court was held that the 25 year sentence due to burglary does not

violate the 8th Amendment. In light of Ewing's lengthy criminal record, his sentence

is not grossly disproportionate. California's three strikes law plays an important

role in reducing crime through deterring or incapacitating chronic offenders.

Common sense says that those who continue to offend should be subject to

lengthy sentences in order to protect society. Numerous studies show that a

relatively small number of offenders are responsible for a very

disproportionately large share of crime, and that past criminal behavior is an

excellent predictor of future crime. Unsurprisingly, there is evidence to show

that three strikes may have contributed to California's dramatic drop in crime

since the implementation of the law. While California does not have the

burden of proving three strike's efficacy, this does place the defendant's

sentence in its appropriate context.

Concurring/Dissenting Opinions:

Justice Scalia held the concurring opinion. Justice Scalia believes that the principle of

proportionality cannot be intelligently applied. He orates that since the majority


7/24

acknowledges, a sentence can have a variety of justifications including

incapacitation, deterrence, retribution, or rehabilitation, it is insufficient to merely

assess whether the gravity of the offense is proportionate to the harshness of the

penalty. Certainly, in the present case, a sentence of 25 to life is not proportionate to

the theft of three golf clubs.

Justice Stevens, with Justice Souter, Justice Ginsburg and Justice Breyer join the

dissents. In direct disagreement with the concurrences, Justice Stevens says that the

Eighth Amendment of the Constitution indeed expresses a broad and basic

proportionality principle that takes into account all of the justifications for penal

sanctions. While Justice Breyer says that, Defendants recidivism despite, the

sentence imposed is grossly disproportionate to the crime of stealing three golf

clubs.

Evaluation of the Case:

The importance of this decision is that it will further protect citizens from the petty

criminals. For future dissenters, the argument that they have against this case is that

this law is unjust and does not evaluate ones circumstances and does not evolve


8/24

into a more reasonable law which then tries to comprehend what the individuals

past, and present. The three strikes law provides a fix for a defective justice

system so that repeat offenders stay in prison. To many crime victims, the U.S.

judicial system has turn into somewhat of a joke. Eviscerate exception rules, case

backlogs, liberal sentences, plea bargaining, and a protect-the-criminal-rather-than-

the-victim mentality has far too often let criminals slip through the cracks. Repeat

offenders nowadays commit most of the crime. The three strikes law is a way to

ensure justice is done even if the system otherwise fails miserably. The law provides

a very effective restriction after the 2nd conviction. Arguments always arise over

what is the best deterrent. Is there a better deterrent than the knowledge you will

definitely go to jail for at least 25 years if convicted again? This will not only

discourage the more serious crime such as rape and armed robbery, it will

discourage the more minor offenses of things like burglary. It's not like this law is

secret or unknown to the criminals. We all know that in the real world criminals get

away with many crimes. The police may not have any clue that committed the crime,

the police may not have near enough evidence to prosecute, and the criminal may

simply slip through the system with the aid of a slick lawyer. It's a major judicial

accomplishment to get one conviction. Thus, when the three-strikes law is applied, it

is often applied to a criminal who has committed far more than 3 crimes. The liberal

media obviously has an agenda to push when it portrays poor, helpless felons in jail

for the rest of their lives for stealing videos or pizza, or committing some other

harmless crime.


9/24

Title and Citation

Atkins v. Virginia


10/24

(536 U.S. 304 (2002)

Facts of the Case:

Around midnight on August 16, 1996, following a day spent together drinking

alcohol and smoking marijuana, Daryl Atkins and his accomplice, William Jones,

walked to a nearby convenience store where they abducted Eric Nesbitt, an airman

from nearby Langley Air Force Base. Unsatisfied with the $60 they found in his

wallet, Atkins and Jones drove Nesbitt in his own vehicle to a nearby ATM and

forced him to withdraw a further $200. In spite of Nesbitt's pleas, the two abductors

then drove him to an isolated location, where he was shot eight times, killing him.

Footage of Atkins and Jones in the vehicle with Nesbitt were captured on the ATM's

CCTV camera, which was of the two men with Nesbitt in the middle and leaning

across Jones to withdraw money, and further forensic evidence implicating the two
http://www.enotes.com/topic/Langley_Air_Force_Basehttp://www.enotes.com/topic/Automatic_Teller_Machinehttp://www.enotes.com/topic/Closed-circuit_televisionhttp://www.enotes.com/topic/Closed-circuit_televisionhttp://www.enotes.com/topic/Automatic_Teller_Machinehttp://www.enotes.com/topic/Langley_Air_Force_Base


11/24

were found in Nesbitt's abandoned vehicle. The two suspects were quickly tracked

down and arrested. In custody, each man claimed that the other had pulled the

trigger. Atkins' version of the events, however, was found to contain a number of

inconsistencies. Doubts concerning Atkins's testimony were strengthened when a

cell-mate claimed that Atkins had confessed to him that he had shot Nesbitt. A deal

of life imprisonment was negotiated with Jones in return for his full testimony

against Atkins. The jury decided that Jones' version of events was the more coherent

and credible, and convicted Atkins ofcapital murder. During the penalty phase of

the trial, the defense presented Atkins's school records and the results of an IQ test

carried out by clinical psychologist Dr. Evan Nelson confirmed that he had an IQ of

59. On this basis they proposed that he was "mildly mentally retarded". Atkins was

nevertheless sentenced to death. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed

the conviction but reversed the sentence after finding that an improper sentencing

verdict form had been used. At retrial, the prosecution proved two aggravating

factors under Virginia lawthat Atkins posed a risk of "future dangerousness"

based on a string of previous violent convictions, and that the offense was

committed in a vile manner. The state's witness, Dr. Stanton Samenow, countered

the defense's arguments that Atkins was mentally retarded, by stating that Atkins's

vocabulary, general knowledge and behavior suggested that he possessed at least

average intelligence. As a result, Atkins's death sentence was upheld.
http://www.enotes.com/topic/Capital_murderhttp://www.enotes.com/topic/IQhttp://www.enotes.com/topic/Mental_retardationhttp://www.enotes.com/topic/Supreme_Court_of_Virginiahttp://www.enotes.com/topic/Stanton_Samenowhttp://www.enotes.com/topic/Stanton_Samenowhttp://www.enotes.com/topic/Supreme_Court_of_Virginiahttp://www.enotes.com/topic/Mental_retardationhttp://www.enotes.com/topic/IQhttp://www.enotes.com/topic/Capital_murder


12/24

The Vote




The vote was; the constitutionality of the case is upheld, and the prosecution of a

mentally retarded person is unconstitutional and it violates the 8th Amendment.

There are six justices in the majority, they are Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Barder

Ginsburg, Anthony M. Kennedy, Sandra Day OConnor, David H. Souter, John Paul

Stevens. Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Barder Ginsburg, Anthony M. Kennedy, Sandra Day

OConnor, David H. Souter, John Paul Stevens offer the concurring opinions, while

dissenting opinions are stated by William H. Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence

Thomas.


13/24

The Law and/or Constitutional Provisions at Issue:

According to the Supreme Court, the case Atkins v. Virginia is to be announced

unconstitutional and the charge of death penalty held against Atkins should be

upheld because it violates the 8th Amendment, the crime would be cruel and

unusual due to the fact that he is mentally retarded. The Court also invalidated an

Oklahoma law (57 O.S. 1941 173, 174, 176181, 195) that compelled the state

government to sterilize "feeble-minded" or "habitual" criminals in an effort to

prevent them from reproducing and passing on their deficient characteristics

Significantly, however, the Court had let stand, fifteen years earlier, a Virginia law

(1924 Va. Acts C. 394) that authorized the sterilization of mentally retarded

individuals who were institutionalized at state facilities for the feeble-minded. The

laws from other states respectively show the constitutionality of the death penalty

being reduced due to his mental retardation.


14/24

The Legal Questions:

Does the execution of mentally retarded individuals convicted of capital crimes

violate the 8th Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment?

How does the 8thAmendment succinctly prohibit excessive sanctions?

How does it interpret: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines

imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted 9?

Does the Eighth Amendment prohibit the execution of mentally retarded persons

cruel and unusual punishment?


15/24


The opinion of the court stated that it was unconstitutional to prohibit Atkins his 8th

Amendment right that states; Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive

fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. These disabilities

aggravate those with mental retardations diminished ability to understand and

process information, to abstract from mistakes and learn from experience, to engage

in logical reasoning, to control impulses, and to understand the reactions of others.

Thus, they remain subject to criminal sanctions, but with diminished personal

culpability, which undermines the purposes of capital punishment as defined by the

Courts capital punishment jurisprudence. Finally, owing to this proven reduced

capacity of offenders with mental retardation, the Court noted that these offenders

face enhanced risk of wrongful execution and specifically identified numerous risk-

enhancing characteristics. It was asserted that persons with mental retardation rely

on authority figures and work hard to please them. Given this fact and the political

pressures of policing, interrogator-coerced false confessions remain a sad reality

confronting suspects with mental retardation.



16/24

In Atkins v. Virginia, Justice John Paul Stevens held the concurring opinion;

"Construing and applying the Eighth Amendment in the light of our 'evolving

standards of decency,' we therefore conclude that such punishment is excessive and

that the Constitution 'places a substantive restriction on the State's power to take

the life' of a mentally retarded offender," wrote Justice Stevens. Which means that

he and the court think that those executions of mentally retarded criminals are

"cruel and unusual punishments" prohibited by the Eighth Amendment.

The dissenting opinions were held by Justice Scalia, Justice Thomas, and Justice

Rehnquist who argued that in spite of the augmented number of states which had

forbidden the capital punishment of the execution to the mentally retarded, there

was no obvious national consensus, and that even given if there were, there was no

basis in the Eighth Amendment for using such measures of opinion to determine

what is "cruel and unusual". Justice Scalia commented in his dissent "seldom has an

opinion of this court rested so obviously upon nothing but the personal views of its

members". The citing of an amicus brief from the European Union also drew

criticism from Chief Justice Rehnquist, who denounced the Court's decision to place

weight on foreign laws.



17/24

The importance of this decision is that there is justice is the system which means

that there will be a law against and an individually whose is out of the norm and

even the norm are going to be given rights. The only possible inclination about this

decision is to protect the rights of an individual. Even in previous court decision

people who were mentally retarded are found to be incapable of connecting with

individuals based on society. Because the mentally retarded are not able to

communicate with the same sophistication as the average offender, there is a

greater likelihood that juries will interpret their deficiency in communicative ability

as a lack of remorse for their crimes. They typically make poor witnesses, being

more prone to suggestion and willing to "confess" in order to placate or please their

questioner. As such, there is a greater risk that the jury may impose the death

penalty despite the existence of evidence that suggests that a lesser penalty should

be imposed. In light of the "evolving standards of decency" that the Eighth

Amendment demands, the fact that the goals of retribution and deterrence are not

served as well in the execution of the mentally retarded, and the heightened risk

that the death penalty will be imposed erroneously, the Court concluded that the

Eighth Amendment forbids the execution of the mentally retarded.

Title and Citation


18/24

Thompson v. Oklahoma

(487 U.S. 815 (1988))

Facts of the Case:

At the age of 15, William Thompson brutally murdered his brother-in-law, who had

been abusing his sister. According to Oklahoma law, Thompson was a minor and

must be tried as one, thereby receiving a reduced sentence and other

considerations. Due to the gravity of the crime, the prosecutor requested an order


19/24

that would allow the boy to be tried as an adult. In order to do this, the prosecution

had to demonstrate that the case had merit and that the chance for rehabilitation of

the child within the juvenile system was slim. An Oklahoma District court granted

the order after hearing of the boy's violent nature, past offenses, and psychiatric

testimony. Thompson was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death.

The ruling was appealed and the Supreme Court overturned the death sentence,

holding that "the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit the execution of a

person who was under 16 years of age at the time of his or her offense." The Court

thereby ruled that applying the death penalty to a 15 year old was prohibited under

the Constitution's cruel and unusual punishment clause.

The Vote




In the case of Thompson v. Oklahoma, the vote was that execution of a juvenile is

unconstitutional under the 8th Amendment. There are five justices in the majority.

Justice John Paul Stevens is the author of the majority vote. Justice Blackmun, Justice

Brennan, Justice Marshall, Justice O'Conno. Justice Rehnquist, Justice Scalia, and


20/24

Justice White offer the concurring opinion. The court voted for Thompson due the

Court who has already endorsed the proposition that less culpability should attach

to a crime committed by a juvenile than to a comparable crime committed by an

adult. The basis for this conclusion is too obvious to require extended explanation.

Inexperience, less education, and less intelligence make the teenager less able to

evaluate the consequences of his or her conduct while at the same time he or she is

much more apt to be motivated by mere emotion or peer pressure than is an adult.

The Law and/or Constitutional Provisions at Issue:

The Court recorded the "evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a

maturing society" as a chief apprehension. Many U.S. jurisdictions and all

industrialized Western nations had excluded the death sentence of juveniles under

16 years of age. They entirely sidestepped any discussion of the original meaning of

the Eighth Amendment and instead claim to look to the evolving standards of

decency that mark the progress of a maturing society. The majority ignores the fact

that there is overwhelming evidence in both historical practice and the common law


21/24

that the Eighth Amendment was not originally meant to entail a prohibition against

the execution of anyone under 16.

The Legal Questions:

Can a defendant be lawfully executed for a crime he committed when he was 15

years old?

Would the execution of a 15 year old violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition

against "cruel and unusual punishments"?

Whether executing a 15 year old is a violation of the cruel and unusual statute of the

eighth amendment.


22/24


The court ruling was a yes. After noting that the Eighth Amendment's prohibition

against "cruel and unusual punishments" applied to the states through the

Fourteenth Amendment, the Court held that the execution of a person under the age

of 16 was unconstitutional. In noting the uniform ban among all relevant state

statutes against the execution of one under the age of 16, the Court explained that

such an act would violate the "evolving standards of decency that mark the progress

of a maturing society." The evolving standards of decency doctrine has become

part and parcel of Eighth Amendment jurisprudence. In his dissent, Justice Scalia

points out the danger of this doctrine; The risk of assessing evolving standards is

that it is all too easy to believe that evolution has culminated in one's own views. To

avoid this danger we have, when making such an assessment in prior cases, looked


23/24

for objective signs of how today's society views a particular punishment. The most

reliable objective signs consist of the legislation that the society has enacted. It will

rarely if ever be the case that the Members of this Court will have a better sense of

the evolution in views of the American people than do their elected

representatives.


As for the concurring opinion Justice Rehnquist stated, For such a young offender,

the deterrence rationale is equally unacceptable. The Department of Justice

statistics indicate that about 98% of the arrests for willful homicide involved

persons who were over 16 at the time of the offense. Thus, excluding younger

persons from the class that is eligible for the death penalty will not diminish the

deterrent value of capital punishment for the vast majority of potential offenders.

And even with respect to those under 16 years of age, it is obvious that the potential

deterrent value of the death sentence is insignificant for two reasons. The likelihood

that the teenage offender has made the kind of cost-benefit analysis that attaches

any weight to the possibility of execution is so remote as to be virtually

nonexistent. This means that age should only make a little difference depending on

what age, that there should be a capital punishment of execution if charged with a

1stdegree murder, or crimes equally disgusting.


24/24


In this case, the importance is also the justice served in protecting the individuals

who lack experience or knowledge of the law. Particularly during the formative

years of childhood and adolescence, minors often lack the experience, perspective,

and judgment expected of adults. Adolescents, particularly in the early and middle

teen years, are more vulnerable, more impulsive, and less self-disciplined than

adults therefore they dont have the capacity to think long-range like adults. The

argument that a juvenile should not be charged with execution as an adult because

he did not have the capacity to think long-range as an adult sounds relevant. The

cruel and unusual punishments clause in the opinion of the learned commentators

may be therefore progressive, and is not fixed firmly to the superseded but may

obtain meaning as a humane justice that enlightens public opinion. This case defines

that stature of a minor under 16, and his rights as an individual to be protected from

harmful laws committed without thinking long range like adults.

Documents

Mit Case Brief