Courtroom Weekly: Juveniles and schools

February 14, 2013

by: the State Court Staff

School funding, GPS tracking, telescopes and criminal justice appeals

Courtroom Weekly The latest and greatest in court cases around the nation In this issue... Featured case News from Texas News from Wisconsin News from Arkansas News from Hawaii

Featured case Michigan tackles juvenile life sentences in light of Supreme Court ruling   Court: 22nd Circuit Court, Michigan When a juvenile is convicted of a violent crime and sentenced to life in prison, most people are shocked. Theories abound as to the reasons for the child’s actions: lack of oversight by his or her parents, societal or cultural stimuli, peer pressure, etc. Year after year for decades, juveniles across the country have been given harsh sentences, up to and including life in prison with no chance of parole, for the crimes they commit as children. In 2012, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that these life sentences are unconstitutional, violating the juvenile’s Eighth Amendment rights. Michigan is “second in the nation in the number of inmates serving life for crimes committed at 17 and younger.” As a result, the state's courts have seen an influx of requests for re-sentencing from prisoners who were convicted and given a life sentence while a juvenile. The main question appears to be, does the SCOTUS ruling have a retroactive effect for all current inmates serving life sentences received while a juvenile or does it simply apply going forward? Judge Archie Brown of Michigan's 22nd Circuit Court was faced with this question recently. He held, in accord with the Michigan Court of Appeals decision, that the ruling handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court in Miller v. Alabama is not intended to be retroactive and denied an inmate's motion for relief from judgment of sentence. Bosie Smith, currently a 37-year-old inmate sentenced to life in prison for the 1992 murder of Kenneth Campbell, had requested that the court re-evaluate his sentence in light of the SCOTUS ruling. Smith has used up all his available appeals and initiated the proceedings under a collateral review, which does not look at the jury's decision. Brown ultimately was unable to make any other decision as he is bound by the holdings of the Michigan Court of Appeals. This decision from Brown came before U.S. District Court Judge John O'Meara, who found that the Michigan parole statute is unconstitutional post-Miller v. Alabama. Juveniles in Michigan who receive life sentences do so under this statute. As a result, Smith's chances for re-sentencing, along with the hundreds of other prisoners serving similar life sentences, may not yet be dead, though the wait for an ultimate answer could be a long one. In other states, legislatures are undertaking political means to bring state law in line with the SCOTUS ruling. For example, Wyoming's Senate has passed a bill which would give a mandatory chance for parole after 25 years (time served) to all juveniles convicted of first degree murder in the state.

News from Texas Judges rules Texas school funding is unconstitutional   Court: Texas District 250 On February 4, Judge John K. Dietz, of the District Court 250, ruled that Texas public school funding is unfair, inefficient and, ultimately, unconstitutional. The ruling favored school districts, who sued the state last year regarding a $5.4 billion cut to public education funding passed in 2011. Dietz decided that the way in which public schools are funded must be changed by the Legislature. He pointed to the disparity between increased standards for the schools set by the Legislature accompanied by a decrease in funding. However, the state is expected to appeal to the Texas Supreme Court, so the Legislature will likely wait for that decision before tackling the issue. The lawsuit sets a record as the largest school finance case in Texas; 600 districts, representing three-quarters of the state's students, were involved in this suit against the Texas Education Agency. The trial began on Oct. 22, 2012 and took 240 hours in court. There have been six comparable cases since 1984. In 2005, Judge Dietz issued a similar ruling, directing the Legislature to change the school funding system. Following the ruling, several school superintendents voiced their support. David Belding, the Millsap superintendent, stated, “ "For the judge to rule that the finance system is inequitable and inefficient, inadequate and unsuitable, and a statewide de facto property tax, is a very strong judgment." ”

News from Wisconsin Wisconsin man's privacy not violated by GPS tracking   Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court The Wisconsin Supreme Court has ruled that the police did not violate a man's privacy after installing a GPS tracker in his car without his knowledge. In 2007, James Brereton was a suspect in multiple burglaries in Walworth and Rock counties. Police impounded Brereton's vehicle during the course of investigating the crimes, and subsequently placed a GPS device in the car. Before placing the GPS in the vehicle, law enforcement sought and were granted a warrant from the Walworth County Circuit Court. Four days after the installation, Brereton was apprehended at a home that had just been burglarized, and incriminating evidence was found at the scene. Brereton challenged the use of the GPS, seeking to suppress evidence found as a result of its use. Brereton and his attorney contended that real-time tracking was not covered by the warrant. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals heard Brereton's challenge, but sided with law enforcement, noting that tracking is a reasonable execution of the warrant for GPS installation. On February 6th, the Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld the lower appeals court's ruling; the decision was 6 to 1 in favor of law enforcement. Brereton and his attorney are considering an appeal to the United States Supreme Court.

News from Arkansas Death row inmate entitled to hearing, says Arkansas Supreme Court   Court: Arkansas Supreme Court An Arkansas death row inmate who believes he has a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel is entitled to a hearing on the claim, the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled on February 7. In 2009, Brandon Eugene Lacy was convicted of capital murder for the 2007 killing of Randall Walker using a knife, a fireplace poker, gasoline and a lighter. At trial, Lacy's attorney did not bring up the possibility that Lacy may have had mental health issues, nor was the possibility raised that Lacy might have had an alcohol addiction that could cause blackouts. The trial court judge, Robin Green, ruled that Lacy's lawyer may have had strategic reasons for not calling particular witnesses who might have testified as to Lacy's mental and physical health. In a 6-1 decision, the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled that Lacy is entitled to an evidentiary hearing in front of a Benton County judge to test the merits of his claim that he was ineffectively represented by counsel. According to the high court, the fact that the trial judge used tentative language in her opinion, saying that Lacy "may" have had mental health issues and that expert witnesses "might" have presented inadmissible testimony, means that there are still questions to be answered. Chief Justice Jim Hannah, who wrote the opinion, stated that "Without benefit of an evidentiary hearing, we are left to surmise that trial counsel exercised reasonable professional judgment . . . This we will not do." The sole dissenter, Justice Courtney Hudson Goodson, wrote that in order to obtain a hearing for ineffective assistance of counsel, Lacy needed to show that his representation was so bad that it effectively denied him a fair trial. She continued, "The claimant must overcome a strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance," a standard that is often difficult for claimants to meet.

News from Hawaii $300 million Hawaiian solar telescope project on hold   Court: Hawaii Supreme Court Construction has been delayed for the Advanced Technology Solar Telescope (ATST) on the giant Hawaiian volcano of Haleakala. The project was placed on hold following an appeal by Kilakila O Haleakala. Kilakila O Haleakala is a native organization that advocates conservation of the sacred summit of Haleakala and has been battling the construction of the ATST for years, arguing that the telescope would have a negative cultural and environmental impact on the area. The joint project is led by the University of Hawaii and the National Science Foundation. The University's President M.R.C. Greenwood said earlier this month that the court delays were costing the project around $500,000 per month. The decision on whether the project moves forward or not lies with the Hawaii Supreme Court. The court heard oral arguments from both sides on December 20, 2012, but it is still unclear when the justices will make a decision. Until then, the telescope must wait.

See also

• Courtroom Weekly