Turkish mafia boss dishes dirt, becomes YouTube phenomenon
ANKARA, Turkey (AP) — From alleged drug trafficking and a murder cover-up to weapons transfers to Islamic militants, a convicted crime ringleader has been dishing the dirt on members of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s ruling party through a series of tell-all videos that have captivated the nation and turned him into an unlikely social media phenomenon. Sedat Peker, a 49-year-old fugitive crime boss, who once openly supported Erdogan’s Justice and Development Party, has been releasing nearly 90-minute long videos from his stated base in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, making scandalous but yet-unproven drip-by-drip allegations, in an apparent bid to settle scor
The Supreme Court on Monday all-but unanimously rolled back the forms of relief available for a narrow class of criminal defendants convicted of federal gun crimes in two consolidated cases. © Provided by Law & Crime Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor sits during a group photo of the Justices at the Supreme Court in Washington, DC on April 23, 2021.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh delivered the opinion of a unanimous court in regards to the first, and namesake, case in Greer v. United States. Meanwhile Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who clarified her reservations while ultimately agreeing with the majority in Greer, dissented from the ruling in the second case stylized as United States v. Gary.
From voting rights to health care, Supreme Court set to deliver major decisions this year
Over the next month, the Supreme Court will be closing out its annual term, clearing out its docket and providing a look at how the new 6-3 conservative majority — featuring three justices appointed by then-President Donald Trump — will rule in the future. Republican Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich is currently dealing with a partisan audit of the 2020 election results in his state and attacks from Trump, but he’s also involved in this case revolving around voters’ rights.
In each case, the defendants were convicted of violating a federal law prohibiting people from possessing a gun if they have been convicted of a crime that can be punished with more than one year in prison.
Greer was convicted after a jury trial. Gary pleaded guilty.
The appeals process played out in each case due to the recent high court decision in Rehaif v. United States which held the government must prove two things in order to win convictions based on the so-called “felon in-possession offense”: (1) that the defendant knew they possessed a firearm; and (2) that the defendant knew they belonged to the relevant category of persons barred from possessing a firearm.
Each of the defendants were convicted prior to the Rehaif ruling and raised arguments on appeal based on the notion that the knowledge requirements had been changed and would have been instrumental to their cases. Gregory Greer argued he might not have been convicted if the now-necessary jury instructions were used in his case. Michael Andrew Gary similarly argued that he wouldn’t have pleaded guilty.
Why Does Elena Kagan Keep Roasting Brett Kavanaugh?
The justice’s latest opinion may be an ominous sign for Supreme Court’s upcoming blockbusters.The simple answer is also the obvious one: These cases have sharply divided the justices, who are still circulating majority opinions, concurrences, and dissents between chambers, sniping at each other in acid footnotes that belie their public claims of collegiality, civility, and mutual respect. That’s nothing new; tempers frequently flair as the court completes its work for the term (usually by late June). This anger often boils over into smaller decisions that don’t grab headlines, but provide clues of what’s coming down the pike.
In real terms, the law changed so neither defendant was: (1) aware of the actual state of the law; or (2) able to preserve the relevant procedural objections at the time.
The legal reality was different.
Here, each of the defendants: (1) technically “forfeited” the claims that made up the basis of their appeals; because (2) they failed “to preserve” the necessary objections based on the changed law at the relevant time under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure–again, which they couldn’t have possibly known about at the time the law says they had to have made such objections for them to count.
Justice Kavanaugh explains how the justices view the state of the law:
Under Rule 51(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, a defendant can preserve a claim of error “by informing the court” of the claimed error when the relevant “court ruling or order is made or sought.” If the defendant has “an opportunity to object” and fails to do so, he forfeits the claim of error. If the defendant later raises the forfeited claim on appeal, Rule 52(b)’s plain-error standard applies.
Sotomayor tells Congress it can fix First Step Act after court rules against defendant
The Obama-appointed justice sided with a unanimous Supreme Court based on the text of the law.The court's unanimous decision held that the text of the First Step Act, a criminal justice overhaul enacted in 2018, does not allow certain inmates to have their sentences retroactively lowered as a result of the new guidelines.
Here, both defendants forfeited their mens rea [mental state] claims by failing to properly preserve them under Rule 51(b). We therefore conduct plain-error review under Rule 52(b).
In these two cases, all nine justices determined that there were errors during the district court proceedings and that those errors were plain–satisfying two-thirds of the relevant rule at stake. Where the majority and the dissent part ways is the determination of whether or not those plain errors impacted the defendants’ “substantial rights.”
Kavanaugh explains the court’s determination:
In a felon-in-possession case where the defendant was in fact a felon when he possessed firearms, the defendant faces an uphill climb in trying to satisfy the substantial-rights prong of the plain-error test based on an argument that he did not know he was a felon. The reason is simple: If a person is a felon, he ordinarily knows he is a felon. “Felony status is simply not the kind of thing that one forgets.”
“Here, Greer and Gary have not carried the burden of showing that the Rehaif errors in their respective cases affected their substantial rights,” the majority opinion continues. “Before their respective felon-in-possession offenses, both Greer and Gary had been convicted of multiple felonies. Those prior convictions are substantial evidence that they knew they were felons. Neither defendant has ever disputed the fact of their prior convictions.”
Sonia Sotomayor Fast Facts
Read CNN's Fast Facts about Sonia Sotomayor to learn about the first Hispanic US Supreme Court justice. Third female justice in US Supreme Court history.First Hispanic person to be appointed to the federal bench in New York. Sotomayor's parents moved from Puerto Rico to New York in the 1940s. Her father died when she was nine. Was editor of the Yale Law Journal. Diagnosed with diabetes at the age of 8.Timeline1979-1984 - Serves as assistant district attorney for New York County.1984-1992 - Associate and later partner of Pavia & Harcourt in New York.
Sotomayor, on the other hand, doesn’t rely on the majority opinion’s invocation of “common sense” to reach her decisions but rather procedural points of law.
In Greer’s case, where she agreed with the court but clarified a different method to obtain the same result, she notes that the defendant “had notice of the Rehaif requirement and an opportunity to rebut the force of this evidence [but] [h]e has not done so.”
“He therefore has not shown a reasonable probability that the jury in an error-free trial would reasonably doubt that he knew of his felon status when he possessed the gun,” the left-wing justice goes on. “As a result, the error did not affect his substantial rights.”
In Gary’s case, however, Sotomayor dissented in full.
On appeal, Gary essentially won in the Fourth Circuit. The nation’s high court remanded with instructions that Gary lost. Sotomayor believes the case should be remanded back down to the Fourth Circuit but she would not have given the appellate judges specific instructions on how to dispose of the case.
“I agree that automatic relief is inappropriate,” she notes. “Gary must therefore make a case-specific showing that the error affected his substantial rights. Unlike Greer, Gary argues he can do so.”
In other words, Sotomayor is pointing out that Gary has raised the relevant procedural safeguards at the relevant times in light of the Rehaif ruling to the best of his possible ability and would have simply given him a chance to prove his case again.
Virginia marijuana legalization timetable has many confused
RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — Virginia's road to legalizing simple possession of marijuana has had some twists and turns, so it's not surprising that advocacy groups have been flooded with calls from people trying to understand exactly what will be allowed under state law as of July 1. Legislators initially voted in February to legalize possession of up to an ounce of marijuana for adult recreational use, but not until 2024, when retail sales would begin. An outcry ensued over the three-year wait before ending pot possession penalties, so in April they voted to move up legalization to this July 1.
Sotomayor also added a lot of dicta about the seemingly unfair application of the law–essentially upbraiding the majority’s “common sense” theory:
Today’s decision also should not be read to create a legal presumption that every individual convicted of a felony understands he is a felon. The Government must prove the knowledge-of-status element beyond a reasonable doubt, just like any other element. Standing alone, the fact of a prior felony conviction is hardly enough to meet that exacting standard. Individuals convicted of crimes carrying a potential term of incarceration of more than one year may “ordinarily” or “typically” know that fact. But that is a far cry from proof beyond a reasonable doubt that any individual person on trial knew his status when he possessed a gun.
Nor does today’s decision impose a uniquely heavy burden on defendants who must establish that a Rehaif error affected their substantial rights. Such defendants must make only the same showing as any other defendant at this stage: a reasonable probability of a different outcome. Defendants who show a reasonable probability that a properly instructed jury would have had reasonable doubts about the knowledge-of-status element are entitled to relief.
There are many reasons a defendant might not know a prior conviction could have led to a sentence of more than a year in prison. Most obviously, as the Court recognized in Rehaif, “a person who was convicted of a prior crime but sentenced only to probation [may] not know that the crime [was] ‘punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.’”
[image via Erin Schaff-Pool/Getty Images]
The post Sotomayor Pens Lone Dissent in Response to Kavanaugh’s ‘Common Sense’ Ruling Against Convicted Felons in Possession of Guns first appeared on Law & Crime.
Supreme Court Finds Cops Cannot Simply Barge into a Home in Pursuit of Someone Suspected of a Misdemeanor .
The court ruled that cops are not universally authorized to make warrantless entries into homes on the suspicion that a fleeing party committed a misdemeanor. The post Supreme Court Finds Cops Cannot Simply Barge into a Home in Pursuit of Someone Suspected of a Misdemeanor first appeared on Law & Crime.The case presented a tough question for the Court, and it became clear during oral arguments that justices were loathe to create a categorical rule would extend an exception to the warrant rule to every case involving a suspected misdemeanor.