Supreme Court rules in favor of defendant in case revolving around Armed Career Criminals Act

[NewYorkExpress]

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/597148-supreme-court-sides-with-defendant-in-armed-career-criminal-act-case

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled in favor of a criminal defendant who the justices found had been handed an overly harsh sentence based on lower courts’ mistaken application of a law.

.....

But in Monday’s unanimous judgment, the Supreme Court said Wooden’s 1997 burglary occurred in “a single criminal occasion,” not 10. In effect, the court ruled, the ACCA should not have applied to Wooden’s illegal gun possession charge.
...


“Here, every relevant consideration shows that Wooden burglarized ten storage units on a single occasion, even though his criminal activity resulted in double-digit convictions,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the majority.

“Wooden committed his burglaries on a single night, in a single uninterrupted course of conduct. The crimes all took place at one location, a one-building storage facility with one address. Each offense was essentially identical, and all were intertwined with the others,” Kagan continued. “The burglaries were part and parcel of the same scheme, actuated by the same motive, and accomplished by the same means. Indeed, each burglary in some sense facilitated the next, as Wooden moved from unit to unit to unit, all in a row.”

The justices were unanimous in their judgment, but separate concurring opinions were issued by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Brett Kavanaugh, as well as Amy Coney Barrett, joined by Clarence Thomas, and Neil Gorsuch, joined by Sotomayor.

[politicallefty]

I jumped straight to the Gorsuch concurrence, which Sotomayor joined (at least parts II-IV). That's the second time in the past few days that we've seen those two join together with no one else. Gorsuch and Sotomayor want to talk about the rule of lenity, something most courts now refuse to apply. It's definitely an interesting read and one I'm inclined to support. As I said in another topic, if those two are together, there's a damn good reason and it's worth reading.

Not surprisingly, Kavanaugh writes a separate concurrence in response to Gorsuch's concurrence against the application of lenity.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I jumped straight to the Gorsuch concurrence, which Sotomayor joined (at least parts II-IV). That's the second time in the past few days that we've seen those two join together with no one else. Gorsuch and Sotomayor want to talk about the rule of lenity, something most courts now refuse to apply. It's definitely an interesting read and one I'm inclined to support. As I said in another topic, if those two are together, there's a damn good reason and it's worth reading.

Not surprisingly, Kavanaugh writes a separate concurrence in response to Gorsuch's concurrence against the application of lenity.

I was just reading about the late posek and Shas party founder Ovadia Yosef and his various takes on the very lenity-esque relationship between Sephardic and Azhkenazic halakha the other night. Interesting to see pretty much the same concept come up again in this context.

[politicallefty]

I jumped straight to the Gorsuch concurrence, which Sotomayor joined (at least parts II-IV). That's the second time in the past few days that we've seen those two join together with no one else. Gorsuch and Sotomayor want to talk about the rule of lenity, something most courts now refuse to apply. It's definitely an interesting read and one I'm inclined to support. As I said in another topic, if those two are together, there's a damn good reason and it's worth reading.

Not surprisingly, Kavanaugh writes a separate concurrence in response to Gorsuch's concurrence against the application of lenity.

I was just reading about the late posek and Shas party founder Ovadia Yosef and his various takes on the very lenity-esque relationship between Sephardic and Azhkenazic halakha the other night. Interesting to see pretty much the same concept come up again in this context.

I admit I don't read a lot of religious texts, but that's not entirely surprising. In theory, the rule of lenity should have a place in religion. I don't think that's been true in practice though.

It's also worth noting that Justice Scalia mentioned the rule of lenity a number of times when he was on the Court, though it seems like he wasn't truly committed.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Every day I feel like I see another Supreme Court case untangling the web that is the ACCA.

[Sestak]

Every day I feel like I see another Supreme Court case untangling the web that is the ACCA.

Yeah this law is basically actual gibberish that the Court is constantly forced to try and make sense of.

[Badger]

Every day I feel like I see another Supreme Court case untangling the web that is the ACCA.

You should see how many decisions are made sorting out at the district and circuit level. Multiple every week.