The Law Will Not Save Us

JOSEPH MARGULIES

Cornell law professor Joseph Margulies reminds us that the rule of law exists in the United States primarily to conceal politics; that is, one cannot rely on having “the law” on one’s side if politics are opposed. Margulies illustrates this point by replacing “the lawyers reviewed the law and decided” with “the high priests studied the entrails and decided”—a substitution that ultimately yields the same results.

Read More

State v. Downing

Docket: 116629

Opinion Date: January 24, 2020

Judge: Dan Biles

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of a court of appeals panel reversing a conviction of burglary of a dwelling, holding that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction. The panel reversed Defendant's conviction based on the building owner's testimony that no one lived there when the crime occurred and that the owner had no plans to live there or rent it out. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the statutory definition of "dwelling" requires proof the burgled place was used as human habitation, home, or residence when the crime occurred or proof that someone had a present, subjective intent at the time of the crime to use the burgled place for such a purpose; and (2) because the State's case lacked that proof the evidence could not support the burglary conviction.

State v. Williams

Docket: 115119

Opinion Date: January 24, 2020

Judge: Stegall

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court remanded Defendant's case for resentencing, holding that the court of appeals properly rejected Defendant's speedy trial claim but that Defendant's sentence was erroneous. Defendant was convicted of unintentional second-degree murder. The court of appeals reversed the conviction and remanded the case for a new trial. On remand, Defendant was again convicted of unintentional second-degree murder. The court of appeals affirmed. On appeal, Defendant argued that his statutory rights to a speedy trial were violated at his first trial, thereby invalidating his second trial, that the district court imposed a vindictive sentence, and that his sentence was illegal because the district court improperly scored an out-of-state conviction as a person crime. The Supreme Court agreed with Defendant's last argument and otherwise affirmed, holding that Defendant's out-of-state conviction was improperly scored as a person crime.