Justices to Consider Life-Without-Parole Sentences in D.C. Sniper Case
WASHINGTON – Do a pair of decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court require the resentencing of Lee Boyd Malvo, the surviving assailant in the D.C. sniper case?
That’s the question the justices will consider when it convenes Wednesday to hear oral arguments in the case Mathena v. Malvo.
For three weeks in October 2002, Malvo, who was 17 at the time, and John Allen Muhammad, terrorized the Washington, D.C. area by carrying out a series of coordinated shootings in the states of Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia.
The duo randomly shot and killed 12 people and severely injured six others before being arrested on October 24, 2002, after they were found, sleeping, at a rest stop near Myersville, Maryland.
It was later determined the Washington shootings were just the latest in a multi-state murder and robbery spree.
Muhammad was sentenced to death and died by lethal injection in November 2009. Malvo, meanwhile, was sentenced to six consecutive life sentences without parole.
Three years later, in 2012, the Supreme Court ruled in Miller v. Alabama that mandatory life-without-parole sentences for defendants who were under the age of 18 when they committed their crimes violated the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
Four years later, in Montgomery v. Louisiana, the court ruled that Miller’s ban on life-without-parole sentences applies retroactively to convictions that had become final before Miller was decided.
In the wake of the court’s decision in Miller, Malvo went to federal district court in Virginia, seeking a ruling that his sentences were unconstitutional.
The district court agreed, and the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision, holding that while Malvo’s crimes were “the most heinous, random acts of premeditated violence conceivable,” the jury and judge at his trial had not considered whether a less severe sentence might be more appropriate in light of his youth.
Virginia then petitioned the High Court take the case. The state argues Miller dealt only with mandatory life-without-parole sentences. It further argues that Montgomery only made the court’s limited ruling in Miller retroactive.
The state maintains nothing in the court’s two rulings apply in the Malvo case.
It goes on to argue that if the justices also want to declare that non mandatory life-without-parole sentences for juveniles are unconstitutional, they should do so in a case involving a direct appeal of a sentence, and not in the current case.
Attorneys for Malvo argue that the intent of Miller and Montgomery are clear, and that if Virginia’s position prevails, juries in the state will never have to consider a juvenile offender’s youth before imposing life without parole.
In The News
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court agreed Friday to decide a long-running copyright dispute between technology giants Oracle and Google. The case stems from Google’s development of its hugely popular Android operating system by using Oracle’s Java programming language. Oracle claims Google owes it roughly $8 billion... Read More
WASHINGTON — Chief Justice John Roberts on Monday imposed an indefinite delay in the House of Representatives’ demand for President Donald Trump’s financial records. Roberts’ order Monday provides no hint about how the Supreme Court ultimately will resolve the dispute. It was handed down just hours... Read More
WASHINGTON - President Donald Trump asked the Supreme Court on Thursday to bar his accounting firm from turning over eight years of his tax returns to prosecutors in New York. The case has significance far beyond Trump as it could determined the scope of presidential immunity... Read More
WASHINGTON — A U.S. appeals court in Washington denied President Donald Trump’s request that it reconsider an earlier three-judge panel ruling refusing to quash a demand by House Democrats for records at Trump’s accountants Mazars USA LLP. Congress issued the subpoena to Mazars in April as... Read More
WASHINGTON - A president has every right to undo a predecessor's policy he disagrees with, but if he does, he must do it the right way, the U.S. Supreme Court was told by immigrant advocates on Tuesday. That simple contention lay at the heart of one... Read More
WASHINGTON - In 2016, 10 Electoral College voters challenged the notion they were bound to vote for the winner of the presidential election in their state and at least tried to vote for somebody else. Seven electors actually cast that vote, while the other three were... Read More