When Is Optimism Actually Pessimism? When Trump Is President

NEIL H. BUCHANAN

UF Levin College of Law professor and economist Neil H. Buchanan continues his discussion considering the future of the rule of law in the United States. Buchanan argues that even assuming a “long arc of American political history,” knowing that eventually, another group of heroes might rise is comforting only in a vague sense.

Read More

State v. Sesmas

Docket: 119862

Opinion Date: March 13, 2020

Judge: Carol A. Beier

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court convicting Defendant of first-degree murder, kidnapping, and aggravated interference with parental custody, holding that Defendant's post-arrest confession was voluntary and that any violation of Defendant's due process rights was harmless. On appeal, Defendant argued that her confession was involuntary and that its admission at trial was reversible error. Defendant also argued that the State violated her due process rights at trial by mentioning her invocation of her rights. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding (1) substantial competent evidence supported the foundation of the district court's decision that Defendant's confession was voluntary and admissible; and (2) where the State thoroughly undermined Defendant's credibility, any fleeting mention of Defendant's invocation of her rights was harmless error.

State v. Galloway

Docket: 117941

Opinion Date: March 13, 2020

Judge: Eric S. Rosen

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for premeditated first-degree murder, arson, and interference with law enforcement but vacated Defendant's controlling hard fifty life sentence, holding that the district court erred by not considering mitigating factors before deciding not to depart from the presumptive sentence. Defendant moved for a downward departure from a hard fifty sentence, arguing that she had no criminal history. The district court stated that it would not consider the absence of Defendant's criminal history as a mitigating factor because the legislature had rejected that argument as grounds for mitigation. The State conceded that the court's statement conflicted with the statutory sentencing scheme and incorrectly stated the law. The Supreme Court vacated the sentence, holding that the error was not harmless.

State v. Parker

Docket: 118349

Opinion Date: March 13, 2020

Judge: Eric S. Rosen

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of premeditated first-degree murder, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below. During trial, the court instructed the jury on premeditated first-degree murder and on the lesser included offense of second-degree murder. The jury found Defendant guilty of first-degree murder. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress self-incriminating statements he made during an interrogation that took place immediately after his arrest; and (2) the district court did not err in denying Defendant's request for an instruction on voluntary manslaughter committed upon a sudden quarrel or in the heat of passion.