ILNews

SCOTUS hears Indiana case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Rehearing

Indiana Federal Community Defender Bill Marsh made his debut appearance before the nation’s highest court on Jan. 12, arguing an Indiana case that questions whether vehicular flight from police is considered “violent” and warrants a higher sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act.

The case is Marcus Sykes v. U.S.A., No. 09-11311, and it comes from the Southern District of Indiana with the potential to impact many other pending cases inside and outside the state.

U.S. Judge Larry McKinney rejected Sykes’ argument that fleeing police in a vehicle wasn’t “violent,” and the judge applied an enhancement to reach a 188-month prison sentence. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling affirmed the enhancement decision in March 2010, finding that it is considered a “violent felony” as it had previously decided on other cases and was dictated by SCOTUS precedent.

Representing Sykes, Marsh is arguing that the ACCA-applied conviction for vehicular flight was inconsistent with the SCOTUS ruling in U.S. v. Chambers, 555 U.S. 129 S. Ct. 687 (2009), which held that failing to report for parole was separate and distinct from escaping from a penal institution, and therefore falls outside of the category of violent felonies listed in the ACCA. Marsh is relying on a distinction the court made in Chambers, that fleeing from police is a distinct category of flight under Indiana Code § 35-44-3.

Transcripts of the arguments show the justices expressed some hesitation in finding this offense falls under the ACCA use of “violent” felony. Justices questioned both sides about various types of police chases and whether the degree of a chase dictates whether it’s considered “violent,” and several of the jurists pointed to examples from Indiana cases and hypothetical scenarios.

Justice Antonin Scalia noted that he doesn’t think fast fleeing is such a violent activity, saying at one point to U.S. Assistant Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall: “Do words mean nothing? I mean, we’re talking about a violent felony. That’s what the federal law requires. And you want us to hold that failing to stop when a police officer tells you to stop is a violent felony. That seems to me a big leap.”

He wondered whether speeding might be considered a “violent felony” under this statute, and Justice Elena Kagan asked whether drag racing or running away on foot might meet that definition.

Chief Justice John Roberts also noted that a person’s simple “running away” isn’t aggressive, though it may be considered “purposeful” and could even be considered “violent” if it causes injury or death that isn’t intended.

“Certainly the other option is to turn and confront, and he doesn’t want to,” the chief justice said. “There’s nothing aggressive about running away. Those are the three words, ‘purposeful, violent, and aggressive.’ I’ll give you purposeful, I’ll give you violent, but aggressive?”

The SCOTUS is likely to rule on this case by the time its term ends this summer, but it could also delay a decision until after it hears McNeill v. U.S.A., No. 10-5258, a case that also involves ACCA.

Rehearing "Crime of violence?" IL Dec. 8-21, 2010
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT