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

State v. Myers

Citation: 304 Neb. 789

Opinion Date: January 10, 2020

Judge: Funke

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court denying Defendant's motion for testing under Nebraska's DNA Testing Act and his motion for the appointment of counsel, holding that the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion for DNA testing. Defendant was convicted of first-degree murder and other crimes. Defendant later filed his motion for DNA testing pursuant to the DNA Testing Act, seeking to have certain items taken from the crime scene tested in order to exclude himself as a donor of any biological material. Defendant additionally claimed that the State withheld findings of biological evidence from him and asked that counsel be appointed. The district court denied relief, determining that the requested testing would not produce noncumulative exculpatory evidence. The court further determined that the State did not withhold evidence and denied Defendant's request for counsel. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the DNA testing requested by Defendant would not result in noncumulative exculpatory evidence relevant to his wrongful conviction claim.

Saylor v. State

Citation: 304 Neb. 779

Opinion Date: January 10, 2020

Judge: Stacy

Areas of Law: Personal Injury

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing as time barred this action brought under the State Tort Claims Act (STCA), Neb. Rev. Stat. 81-8,209 to 81-8,235, holding that the savings clause of Neb. Rev. Stat. 25-201.01 does not apply to an action under the STCA. It was undisputed that Plaintiff's lawsuit was filed outside the statute of limitations set forth in Neb. Rev. Stat. 81-8,227(1). At issue was whether Plaintiff could satisfy the requirements of the savings clause in section 25-201.01. The district court dismissed the action as time barred, finding that section 25-201.01 did not apply. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Plaintiff's STCA action was not timely commenced under the STCA and that the district court did not err in not applying the savings clause under section 25-201.01.