Answering My Hate Mail

JOSEPH MARGULIES

Cornell law professor Joseph Margulies describes a recent piece of hate mail he received from someone who apparently saw him quoted in an Associated Press article about what a Biden administration might mean for the 40 remaining prisoners in Guantanamo. Professor Margulies explains that he can forgive the writer because he knows the writer’s rant most likely comes from a place of psychological and cultural insecurity, but at the same time he also holds the writer accountable for his behavior.

Read More

State v. Vonachen

Docket: 118361

Opinion Date: December 4, 2020

Judge: Dan Biles

Areas of Law: Criminal Law, Juvenile Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions of first-degree murder, one count of attempted first-degree murder, and one count of aggravated arson, holding that no error occurred in the proceedings below. Defendant was fourteen years old when he committed the crimes for which he was convicted. On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that the court's certification to try him as an adult violated Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding (1) the trial court did not err when it denied Defendant's motion to suppress incriminating statements Defendant made to police; (2) there was no prosecutorial error; (3) Defendant's Apprendi issue was unpreserved for appeal; (4) the district court did not abuse its discretion in applying Kan. Stat. Ann. 38-2347(e) and authorizing adult prosecution; and (5) the court abused its discretion in applying the factors set out in K.S.A. 2012 Supp. 38- 2347(e) to authorize a juvenile's adult prosecution.

State v. Gales

Docket: 119302

Opinion Date: December 4, 2020

Judge: Dan Biles

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals rejecting Defendant's illegal sentence claim and vacated Defendant's sentence, holding that the district court erred when it looked beyond the elements of Defendant's prior 1976 California juvenile adjudication for burglary to score the adjudication as a person offense. Defendant was convicted of second-degree murder and arson. Defendant later moved to correct his sentence, arguing that his prior California burglary adjudication was improperly scored as a person felony. The court of appeals upheld the person classification. The Supreme Court vacated Defendant's sentence and remanded his case to the district court for resentencing with the burglary adjudication to be scored as a nonperson offense, holding that the district court erred when it scored Defendant's burglary adjudication as a person offense.

State v. Ochoa-Lara

Docket: 112322

Opinion Date: December 4, 2020

Judge: Marla J. Luckert

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for identity theft stemming from his use of personal identifying information belonging to someone else to obtain employment, holding that Defendant failed to preserve for appeal his argument that his convictions were multiplicitous. The State split Defendant's identity theft into two charges to cover the time periods before and after the identity theft statute changed in 2012. On appeal, Defendant argued that his state prosecution for identity theft was preempted by federal law and that his convictions were multiplicitous. The court of appeals affirmed the convictions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant failed to preserve his multiplicity argument for appeal.

State v. Parks

Docket: 121832

Opinion Date: December 4, 2020

Judge: Dan Biles

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's denial of Defendant's motion to correct an illegal sentence, holding that the sentence imposed conformed to the applicable statutory provisions. In 1997, Defendant pled no contest to first-degree murder for the 1978 killing of his wife. At sentencing, the district court classified a prior New Mexico conviction for an attempted first-degree murder as a person crime when calculating his criminal history score for the Kansas conviction. Defendant later filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing that when he committed the Kansas murder the law did not distinguish between person and nonperson crimes, and therefore, his conviction for his "unclassified felony" should be scored as a nonperson crime for the purpose of determining his criminal history. The district court summarily denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant's life sentence conformed to the statutory provision for Class A felonies at the applicable time of conviction.