The Fate of American Democracy May Depend on the Willingness of Democratic Governors to Fight Fiercely after the November 3 Election

AUSTIN SARAT, DANIEL B. EDELMAN

In anticipation of a contested election outcome in November, Amherst College Associate Provost Professor Austin Sarat and attorney Daniel B. Edelman call upon Democratic governors to forward a slate of electors that reflects the preference of the greatest number of voters in their states, regardless of what their legislatures might do. Sarat and Edelman argue that the fate of American democracy may depend on these governors.

Read More

Commonwealth v. Miller

Docket: SJC-11696

Opinion Date: October 22, 2020

Judge: Kafker

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

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant's convictions of murder in the first degree by deliberate premeditation and assault with intent to murder, holding that no error occurred in the proceedings below. Specifically, the Supreme Judicial Court held (1) the motion judge did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress because (a) although Defendant unambiguously invoked his right to counsel, he voluntarily reinitiated contact with detectives, and (b) Defendant's waiver of his Miranda rights was intelligent, knowing, and voluntary; (2) factually inconsistent verdicts were no grounds to set aside Defendant's convictions of murder in the first degree and assault with the intent to murder because ample evidence supported both convictions; and (3) the verdict of murder in the first degree was consonant with justice, and there was no basis to set aside the verdict or order a new trial pursuant to the Court's extraordinary power under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, 33E.

Commonwealth v. Waller

Docket: SJC-11484

Opinion Date: October 22, 2020

Judge: Lowy

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

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of murder in the first degree and unlawful possession of a firearm, holding that no error occurred during the proceedings below. Specifically, the Supreme Judicial Court held (1) one of the Commonwealth's key witnesses did not provide improper lay testimony on the ultimate issue of Defendant's guilt; (2) Defendant's argument that a substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice occurred because the judge did not provide a self-defense instruction sua sponte was without merit; (3) trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance for strategically deciding against requesting a self-defense instruction; and (4) there was no basis to set aside the verdict of murder in the first degree or to order a new trial pursuant to the Court's extraordinary power under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 278, 33E.

Falcone v. Commonwealth

Docket: SJC-12833

Opinion Date: October 22, 2020

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the county court denying, without a hearing, Defendant's petition under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3 for relief from home confinement as a condition of his bail, holding that the single justice properly denied relief. Defendant was charged with open and gross lewdness, subsequent offense. At Defendant's arraignment, a district court judge set bail and, as a condition of release, ordered that Defendant be subject to GPS monitoring and confined to the interior of his home. Defendant was released subject to these conditions. Defendant later filed his Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3 petition challenging the order of home confinement. The single justice denied relief. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding the bail judge was within his discretion to order Defendant to remain inside the house.