Latest Case: E.H. v. Honorable Dan Slayton (Criminal Law)

The Least Interesting Branch: Why Supreme Court Leaks Reveal Little

MICHAEL C. DORF

Cornell law professor Michael C. Dorf comments on a recent series of articles published on CNN.com purporting to reveal deep secrets about the U.S. Supreme Court’s deliberations. Dorf points out that the so-called revelations about the Court reveal little or nothing that Court watchers don’t already know or infer, which, paints a reassuring picture of the Court as operating behind closed doors exactly as we expect it to.

Read More

E.H. v. Honorable Dan Slayton

Docket: CR-19-0118-PR

Opinion Date: August 4, 2020

Judge: Robert M. Brutinel

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court held that the practice of placing a cap on the amount of restitution a defendant may be liable for in a plea agreement, without the victim's consent, violates the right to restitution. In State v. Lukens, 151 Ariz. 502 (1986), State v. Phillips, 152 Airz. 533 (1987), and State v. Crowder, 155 Ariz. 477 (1987), the Supreme Court held that a specific amount of restitution or a cap is necessary for a defendant to make a voluntary and intelligent plea. Here, the Supreme Court overruled these former decisions, holding (1) there is no constitutional requirement to inform a defendant of a specific amount of restitution or to cap the amount of restitution that a court may order; and (2) the change will apply prospectively. Further, the Court held that a lawyer representing a victim has a presumptive right to sit in the well of the courtroom during a hearing involving a victim's constitutional or statutory right, subject to the physical limitations of a courtroom or other trial exigencies. In the instant case, the Supreme Court vacated the cap on restitution available to the victim.