Supreme Court hears case over life sentence of DC sniper

[mystery-ak]

Supreme Court hears case over life sentence of DC sniper
By Jessica Campisi - 10/16/19 04:16 PM EDT

The Supreme Court on Wednesday heard oral arguments in a case involving the sentence of Lee Boyd Malvo, one of the two so-called D.C. snipers.

Justices appeared split over whether to grant Malvo, who was convicted and sentenced to life without parole as a teenager, a new sentencing hearing, according to reports.

Malvo was 17 years old when he and 41-year-old John Allen Muhammad murdered 10 people and wounded three others in a random string of killings that terrorized the Maryland, Virginia and Washington, D.C., region in 2002.

more
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/466146-dc-sniper-asks-supreme-court-to-reconsider-sentence-of-life-without

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

I'm not much of a death penalty fan, but if he did get a resentencing hearing and it came out that way I wouldn't shed a tear.

[Elderberry]

Argument analysis: “D.C. sniper” case could hinge on Kavanaugh

SCOTUSblog by Amy Howe 10/16/2019

https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/10/argument-analysis-d-c-sniper-case-could-hinge-on-kavanaugh/

It has been 17 years since John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo, known as the “D.C. snipers,” shot and killed 12 people and injured six more. The Washington, D.C., area was paralyzed with fear until the then-42-year-old Muhammad and Malvo, who was then 17, were arrested at a Maryland rest stop. Muhammad was sentenced to death and executed in 2009, and Malvo was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. This afternoon the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Malvo’s challenge to that sentence. After an hour of oral argument, it seemed possible that Malvo’s case might not be over yet, with Justice Brett Kavanaugh potentially the pivotal vote.

Two cases are at the heart of the dispute before the justices. In 2012, in Miller v. Alabama, the Supreme Court ruled that mandatory life-without-parole sentences for defendants who were under the age of 18 violate the Eighth Amendment, which bars cruel and unusual punishment. And in 2016, in Montgomery v. Louisiana, the justices concluded that Miller’s prohibition of life-without-parole sentences applies to convictions that had become final before Miller was decided. Malvo went back to court in 2017, arguing that, as a result of the two decisions, his sentence was unconstitutional. The lower courts agreed and ordered Virginia to resentence him, reasoning that the judge and jury had not had a chance to consider whether a shorter sentence might be more appropriate because of Malvo’s age. The Supreme Court granted Virginia’s petition for review of that ruling earlier this year.

One theme in this afternoon’s oral argument was the basic question of whether Miller’s rule applies to Malvo’s case, or whether it is limited to mandatory life-without-parole sentences. Arguing on behalf of Randall Mathena, the warden at the prison where Malvo is serving his sentence, Virginia Solicitor General Toby Heytens told the justices that, if Miller is not about mandatory sentences, “much of it doesn’t make sense.”

More at link.

[Hoodat]

Two cases are at the heart of the dispute before the justices. In 2012, in Miller v. Alabama, the Supreme Court ruled that mandatory life-without-parole sentences for defendants who were under the age of 18 violate the Eighth Amendment, which bars cruel and unusual punishment. And in 2016, in Montgomery v. Louisiana, the justices concluded that Miller’s prohibition of life-without-parole sentences applies to convictions that had become final before Miller was decided. Malvo went back to court in 2017, arguing that, as a result of the two decisions, his sentence was unconstitutional. The lower courts agreed and ordered Virginia to resentence him, reasoning that the judge and jury had not had a chance to consider whether a shorter sentence might be more appropriate because of Malvo’s age.

Horsehockey.  Malvo got a life sentence as part of a plea deal.  In other words, he willfully accepted his life sentence to save him from death row.  Nothing unconstitutional about it.  No violation of Amendment VIII.  But hey, if he wants a do-over, then by all means let him be tried.  Submit his confession in court.  Find him guilty.  And then sentence him to death by lethal injection in Greensville.

[Gefn]

Bookmark