Dimaya, Oh Dimaya … Where Art Thou?
These two parts of section 16:
(a) an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another, or
(b) any other offense that is a felony and that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.
Section 16(a) is known as the “force clause.” That provision is not at issue in Dimaya. If something qualifies as a “crime of violence” under the force clause, courts generally will not reach whether 16(b) also applies. Section 16(b) is known as the “residual clause.” It is very similar to the “residual clause” that was declared unconstitutional in Johnson. Dimaya is not a criminal case. Rather, it is an immigration case. It is unclear whether this is going to matter to the Supreme Court’s analysis of the issue. There was a discussion of this during oral argument back in January 2017. When will Dimaya be decided? Most likely by the end of the Court’s term, which is late this month. We could see a decision this week. I will be checking each day for a decision in Dimaya and post as soon as it is out.
Recommended for you
Ex Parte Communications By Judge With Jury Required Reversal Of Convictions
At Martin Bradley III’s trial for racketeering, mail fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering, the district court had two ex parte communications with the jury. Bradley’s defense lawyers did not become aware of notes until after his appeal. Bradley filed a 2255 motion arguing, in addition to other things, that the court had violated Rule…
Supervised Release Cannot Be Revoked After Supervision Term Ends
Anthony Holman’s supervised release was revoked for failing to pay restitution and picking up a new charge. However, the violation petition was not submitted until after Holman’s term of supervision had already expired. No summons was pending at the time either. Generally, whenever a U.S. Probation Officer believes that a defendant has violated his or…
Burrage Applies Retroactively To Cases On Collateral Review
In Burrage v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 881 (2014), the Supreme Court held that “at least where use of the drug distributed by the defendant is not an independently sufficient cause of the victim’s death or serious bodily injury, a defendant cannot be liable under the penalty enhancement provision of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C)…