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

State v. Bowser

Docket: 120350

Opinion Date: October 23, 2020

Judge: Stegall

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

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of ten counts of criminal conduct, including attempted capital murder, holding that a single error occurred in the proceedings below, and the error was harmless. Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) there was no support for Defendant's claims that the district court impermissibly participated in plea negotiations and imposed consecutive sentences as "the product of judicial vindictiveness"; (2) the prosecutor made an incorrect statement during closing arguments, but the State met its burden to demonstrate that the error did not affect the trial's outcome beyond a reasonable doubt; and (3) the district court did not err in its response to a jury question.

State v. Davis

Docket: 119871

Opinion Date: October 23, 2020

Judge: Dan Biles

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions of first-degree murder and other offenses, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below. Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the State charged Defendant with an alternative means crime, and sufficient evidence supported both alternative means articulated in the court's jury instructions; (2) the district court did not err when it admitted into evidence Defendant's incriminating statements to police; and (3) Defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his argument that the district court erred by excluding evidence that Defendant delayed treatment for his injuries; (4) the prosecutor did not commit misconduct during voir dire; and (5) there was no inconsistency with the sentencing journal entry and the district court's oral pronouncement at the sentencing hearing.

State v. Meggerson

Docket: 117131

Opinion Date: October 23, 2020

Judge: Stegall

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of attempted capital murder, aggravated robbery, and other offenses, holding that there was no error during Defendant's trial. Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) there was sufficient evidence presented by the State to support Defendant's convictions; (2) Defendant failed to designate a sufficient record to support his claim that the district court erred when it admitted the contents of his cell phone; (3) the district court did not err when it admitted Defendant's jail phone calls; (4) the district court properly admitted Kan. Stat. Ann. 60-455 prior crimes evidence; and (5) the district court properly admitted two timelines as evidence.