Latest 2 Cases: Shine v. Moreau (Constitutional Law), State v. Gumkowski (Criminal Law)

Senate Secrecy: Can the Votes of Senators on President Trump’s Impeachment be Withheld from the Voting Public?

VIKRAM DAVID AMAR, JASON MAZZONE

Illinois law dean Vikram David Amar and professor Jason Mazzone evaluate the suggestion made by some that the votes of senators on President Trump’s impeachment can and should be private. Amar and Mazzone argue that while the text of the Constitution alone does not foreclose secrecy, structural, prudential, and logistical considerations strongly disfavor a secret vote on the matter.

Read More

Shine v. Moreau

Dockets: 18-84, 18-85, 18-86

Opinion Date: January 9, 2020

Judge: William P. Robinson, III

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law

In this consolidated appeal from an order of the superior court concluding that former Central Falls Mayor and former members of the Central Falls City Council (collectively, the elected officials) were not entitled to indemnification from the State for attorneys' fees and costs incurred over the course of this action the Supreme Court held that the superior court correctly concluded that the State was not required to indemnify the elected officials. These cases arose out of conflicts between a receiver, appointed for the City of Central Falls pursuant to the Financial Stability Act, and the elected officials. After the Supreme Court resolved the issue of the constitutionality of the Financial Stability Act the parties continued to litigate about the issue of attorneys' fees and indemnification. The Supreme Court concluded that the elected officials were entitled to indemnification. At issue in this appeal was who was required to indemnify the elected officials for their legal fees and costs. The superior court held that the City was required to indemnify the elected officials. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the elected officials were entitled to indemnification from the City but not from the State.

State v. Gumkowski

Docket: 18-42

Opinion Date: January 9, 2020

Judge: Paul A. Suttell

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court convicting Defendant of first-degree murder and first-degree arson, holding that the trial justice was not clearly wrong in denying Defendant's motion for a new trial. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial justice was clearly wrong when she denied his motion for a new trial because the weight of the evidence did not support the jury's verdict. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the evidence supported a finding that Defendant was the perpetrator and that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence because the evidence supported a finding of premeditation.