Posted: August 7th, 2022

Criminal Justice-Related Cases

The appellate process is a cornerstone of a democratic criminal justice system. However, many people are unaware of the process that a case may undergo before it finds itself before the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). In fact, as you have read, not all cases reach the highest court in the land. In this activity, you are going to trace the path of a criminal case from the lower court by identifying the facts of the case, the ruling at the appellate court level, the key legal questions and how they relate to the Constitution, and the ruling in the case as made by the SCOTUS.

Complete the following for this assignment:

Use this Web site to select cases, and using the term, select 2 criminal justice-related cases that were decided within the last 3 years. You can determine that it is a criminal case by looking for either the “United States” or the name of a state in the case name. If you do not see the name of a state or “United States” in the title of the case, that means that it is a civil case. Do not select a civil case.

Provide the following for each case in your own words:

A summary of each case
A summary of the procedural history of the case, or how it wound its way through the court system to the United States Supreme Court
The key facts
The appellate court decision and reasoning
Identify the key legal questions or issues that were argued before the SCOTUS and the decision
Identify the Supreme Court Justice writing the majority opinion, summarize the decision, and if applicable, summarize the concurring and dissenting opinions
Lastly, explain whether you agree with the decision in the case, and explain why.

Website:
https://www.oyez.org/
—

Criminal Justice-Related Cases
Name
Institutional Affiliation
Terry v. United States, 593 U.S. (June 14, 2021)
Case Homework help – Summary
In 2008 – Affordable Custom Essay Writing Service | Write My Essay from Pro Writers, Tarahrick Terry was convicted and pled guilty to the possession of cocaine base that is also called the ‘crack cocaine’ with an intention of distributing. At this time, the crack offenses that involved 50g or more of crack cocaine attracted a 10 year mandatory minimum under the § 841(b)(1)(A). If the crack offense involved 5g or more of crack then it attracted a 5year mandatory minimum under § 841(b)(1)(B) and in case the case involved crack below 5g then it did not carry a mandatory minimum under § 841(b)(1)(C). Terry’s offense involved 4g of crack and hence he would not be subject to the mandatory minimum requirement. He qualified as a career offender under the Sentencing Guidelines and hence received a sentence of 188 months imprisonment from the District Court.
In 2010 – Essay Writing Service: Write My Essay by Top-Notch Writer, Congress passed the Fair Sentencing Act that modified the weight limits for drug offenses. In 2018: 2024 – Write My Essay For Me | Essay Writing Service For Your Papers Online, Congress enacted the First Step Act that defined the ‘covered offenses’ and having the Fair Sentencing Act being applied, Terry petitioned the District Court to reduce the sentence due to the passage of these laws. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ruled that the offenses were not covered and hence his sentence was not eligible for reduction.
The Procedural History of the Case
Terry appealed the District Court’s ruling at the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. He argued that the conviction was eligible to be covered under the First Step Act since the Fair Sentencing act of 2010 – Essay Writing Service: Write My Essay by Top-Notch Writer modified the weight ceiling for the possession of crack cocaine. The modification had made the section one of the covered offenses and since the Act retroactively updated the penalties for the covered offenses. The court states that the act explicitly states it cannot be applied to a case so that it can be required to reduce the sentence. Therefore, Terry’s offense was not covered by the First Step Act and hence the Appeals court affirmed the ruling for the Southern District of Florida.
Terry petitioned the decision to the Supreme Court indicating that there was a split circuit decision on if there were 3 possession crimes that could be resentenced under the First Step Act. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in January 2021 and issued its decision on June 14, 2021.
Key Legal Issue Before SCOTUS
Do pre-August 3, 2010 – Essay Writing Service: Write My Essay by Top-Notch Writer, crack offenders sentenced under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C) have a “covered offense” under Section 404 of the First Step Act?
Supreme Court Decision
The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the decision by the Eleventh Circuit asserting that Terry and other persons pursuing 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C) were not eligible for the reduced sentences under the First Step Act 2018: 2024 – Write My Essay For Me | Essay Writing Service For Your Papers Online. This is because they were not originally convicted of offenses that triggered minimum mandatory sentences, considering that the penalties for those sentenced under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C) are similar to what they were when Congress wrote the law creating the unfair racial disparities between crack and powder cocaine, then the court concluded that 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C) had not been modified by the Fair Sentencing Act. Justice Sotomayor’s concurrence statement highlighted the injustice of the outcome and urged Congress to amend the First Sentencing Act to explicitly allow resentencing for persons like Terry.
Personal opinion:
I do agree with the case’s progression and ultimate outcome since the judges did look into very important detailing within the Fair Sentencing Act. iot is important that they do not vaguely consider Terry’s case to be part of the covered offenses by using the language used in the law. Notably, calling upon Congress for a new law that would remedy situations such as Terry’s case was very important.
Borden v. United States, 593 U.S. (June 10, 2021)
Case Homework help – Summary
Charles Borden was caught by the police having a pistol during a traffic stop in April 2017 which he subsequently pleaded guilty for possession of a firearm as a felon. This violated the 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). At sentencing the government indicated that the case involved the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) provision which imposed a 15 year minimum on anyone that has been convicted for being a felon possessing a firearm when the individual has three or more ‘violent felony’ convictions. The term ‘violent felony’ has been defined in pertinent as the felony that has an element of use, attempted use or threatened use of physical force against another person. Borden had previous Tennessee aggravated assault convictions that the government was using for the sentence recommendation. Borden objected, indicating that one of them, specifically the reckless aggravated assault, was not qualified to be a ‘violent felony; under ACCA’s clause on the use of force. Retroactively, the district court applied the Sixth Circuit precedent to hold that the reckless aggravated assault did constitute a violent felony under the ‘use of force’ clause under ACCA. Therefore the district court held that the three previous aggravated assault cases were ‘crimes of violence’ to designate Borden as an armed career criminal and 15 years’ imprisonment.
The Procedural History of the Case
Borden appealed the District Court’s ruling at the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit who affirmed the ruling, the court asserted the ruling on reckless conduct was part of the ‘violent felony’ cases which triggered the ACCA sentencing enhancement. The defendant, Borden, appealed the ruling to the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in 2020 to resolve the circuit split.
Key Legal Issue Before SCOTUS
Does the “use of force” clause in the Armed Career Criminal Act (the “ACCA”), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(i) encompass crimes with a mens rea of mere recklessness?
Supreme Court Decision
The Supreme Court sided with Borden’s argument and reversed the Appeal’s decision, three justices made the plurality opinion authored by Justice Kagan while Justice Thomas provided the key fisth vote in the opinion that concurred with the judgment only. The plurality opinion asserted that when establishing whether a priori conviction qualified as a violent felony for ACCA purposes, the courts are needed to use the categorical approach, the approach required that the actual conduct that led to the charge is irrelevant to determining a violent felony. Rather, the concentration should be on offense’s elements that do involve the use, attempted use or threatened use of physical force against another individual.
In the approach’s application, the plurality opinion concluded that the offense with a mens rea requirement did not meet the violent felony definition under the elements clause, the opinion supported the conclusion by saying that the phrase ‘against another’ when modifying the ‘use of force’ demanded that the perpetrator directed their action or targetted another person. Reckless conduct is not targeted in this prescribed manner. Therefore, it is only the crimes with the mens rea requirement of purposeful or knowing conduct that did qualify as the violent felonies for ACA purposes. Since the Tennessee reckless aggravated assault statute under which the defendant had previously been convicted had the mens rea requirement of recklessness, the conviction was not a violent felony. Thus, Borden was not properly sentenced to the 15 year mandatory minimum sentences outlined by ACCA.
In his concurring opinion, Justice Thomas agreed that the reckless aggravated assault did not meet the requirements in the elements clause. However, he contended that Borden should have been deemed an armed career criminal under the residual clause provision of ACCA. However, this clause has previously been declared unconstitutional in the Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015 – Research Paper Writing Help Service). Justice Thomas refuted Johson’s ruling stating that it needed to be overruled. Since the issue was not before the court prior to Borden, then he agreed with the plurality opinion that Borden was improperly sentenced under ACCA.
Justice Kavanaugh made his dissenting opinion that was joined by Chief Justice Robeerts and Justices Alito and Barrett, the dissenters disagreed with the plurality’s interpretation of the elements clause. They highlighted that it contained no mens rea requirement in its face, Justice Kavanaugh pointed out that the court’s decision was more likely to threaten public safety through a reduction of the sentences of violent offenders.
Personal Opinion
I agree with the Supreme Court’s decision that Borden’s aggravated assault case had no mens rea requirements which makes it not part of violent felonies.

References
Borden v. United States, 593 U.S. (June 10, 2021). Retrieved from https://www.oyez.org/cases/2020/19-5410
Terry v. United States, 593 U.S. (June 14, 2021). Retrieved from https://www.oyez.org/cases/2020/20-5904

Order | Check Discount