Glossip v. Oklahoma
No. 22-7466
United States Supreme Court
Habeas corpus: Independent state grounds
|
U.S. Supreme Court case seeking to overturn a murder conviction and death sentence that have already been reviewed many times over many years. Richard Glossip, a motel employee, was twice convicted of hiring another employee to murder the owner of the motel, Barry Van Treese, in 1997. The second conviction and death sentence were in 2004, yet Glossip has been able to delay execution for two decades through repeated litigation. Most recently, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed his supposedly new evidence and found that it was neither new nor convincing. Glossip has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case. Strangely, the Oklahoma Attorney General has switched sides and supported Glossip, leaving the Van Treese family to oppose the petition themselves. University of Utah law professor Paul Cassell and CJLF represented the family in asking the court to let the state court's decision stand without further review. The Oklahoma District Attorneys' Association also joined this brief.
After lengthy consideration, the high court took the case up for full briefing and argument but added an issue suggested in our brief. At this stage, CJLF filed its own brief arguing that added issue, i.e., whether the U.S. Supreme Court even has jurisdiction to review the state court's decision. Professor Cassell filed a brief on behalf of the Van Treese family debunking the parties' misrepresentation of the facts of the case. The case is set for argument October 9, 2024.
|
In re Kowalczyk
No. S277910
California Supreme Court
Bail: Denial of bail & ability to pay
|
California Supreme Court case to review (1) which California constitutional provision governs the denial of bail in noncapital cases — article I, section 12, subdivisions (b) and (c), or article I, section 28, subdivision (f)(3), or both? and (2) whether a superior court can ever set pretrial bail above an arrestee’s ability to pay.
Kowalczyk was charged with vandalism, identity theft, and theft. He had a 100-page rap sheet, with 64 prior convictions, with extensive evidence of having failed to abide by probation conditions, plus 4 DUI convictions. His bail was originally set at $75,000, and eventually a judge denied bail altogether. Kowalczyk filed a habeas petition challenging the denial of bail. While his petition was pending, his case was resolved and he was released from custody. The Court of Appeal dismissed his petition as moot. The California Supreme Court granted Kowalczyk’s petition for review and transferred the case back to the Court of Appeal with directions to vacate the dismissal order and to issue an opinion addressing which constitutional provision governs the denial of bail in noncapital cases.
CJLF joined the case to argue that both article I, section 12, subdivisions (b) and (c), and article I, section 28, subdivision (f)(3), are reconcilable and both constitutional provisions govern the denial of bail in noncapital cases. Furthermore, if money bail is necessary under the circumstances, bail can be set in an amount that may be above an arrestee’s ability to pay when it is necessary to further the state’s compelling interests in adequately assuring an arrestee’s appearance in court and in protecting victim and public safety and there are no other nonmonetary conditions of release that can reasonably protect those interests.
|
Glossip v. Oklahoma
No. 22-7466
United States Supreme Court
Habeas corpus: Independent state grounds
|
U.S. Supreme Court case seeking to overturn a murder conviction and death sentence that have already been reviewed many times over many years. Richard Glossip, a motel employee, was twice convicted of hiring another employee to murder the owner of the motel, Barry Van Treese, in 1997. The second conviction and death sentence were in 2004, yet Glossip has been able to delay execution for two decades through repeated litigation. Most recently, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals reviewed his supposedly new evidence and found that it was neither new nor convincing. Glossip has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case. Strangely, the Oklahoma Attorney General has switched sides and supported Glossip, leaving the Van Treese family to oppose the petition themselves. University of Utah law professor Paul Cassell and CJLF represent the family in opposition, and the Oklahoma District Attorneys' Association has also joined our brief.
|
ADDA v. Gascón
No. S275478
California Supreme Court
Prosecutors: Three strikes discretion
|
California Supreme Court case reviewing an injunction to compel the Los Angeles District Attorney to obey the Three Strikes Law's requirement to charge the prior strikes in all cases. The Three Strikes Law, enacted in 1994, has a provision requiring the district attorney to charge the prior convictions for serious or violent felonies ("strikes") in all cases, but authorizing the trial judge to dismiss them in the interest of justice. The people amended the Three Strikes Law in 2012 to make it less severe, but the mandatory charging provision remains. After his election as district attorney, George Gascón announced that his office would never charge the strikes in any case, effectively negating the law in Los Angeles County. This decision was challenged in court by the Association of Deputy District Attorneys. The superior court ordered Gascón to obey the law, and the Court of Appeal affirmed. The California Supreme Court granted review of the case. CJLF has entered to case to argue that the order was proper, the Three Strikes Law means what it has been understood to say from the beginning, and the people have the constitutional authority to order that the prior convictions be presented to the court in all cases.
|
|
