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


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. What Mr. Bir is paying is actually Undifferentiated Family Support, which is a mixture of child support and spousal maintenance. If the courts had labeled accurately labeled the transfer payment, I think that Mr. Bir would have fewer objections to paying it because both Spousal Maintenance and Undifferentiated Family Support are tax deductions for the paying party and taxable to the receiving party. I brought this issue up with my family court judge when my voluntarily unemployed ex-wife was using the 'child support' transfer payment to support both herself and out children. Said family court judge stated that I did not know what I was talking about because I did not have a Juris Doctorate, despite my having a printout with dictionary definitions of the legal terms that I was using for documentation.

  2. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  3. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  4. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  5. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?