Justices to Consider Life-Without-Parole Sentences in D.C. Sniper Case

October 15, 2019 by Dan McCue
The stolen Bushmaster XM-15 rifle used by Muhammad and Malvo during their attacks. (Photo courtesy the FBI)

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.

Supreme Court

Trump’s Taxes, Birth Control Top Supreme Court’s Closing Agenda
Supreme Court
Trump’s Taxes, Birth Control Top Supreme Court’s Closing Agenda

The U.S. Supreme Court is poised to cap a term like no other with potentially blockbuster decisions covering birth control, religious rights and President Donald Trump’s efforts to keep his financial records private. The justices will tackle their eight remaining cases starting Monday, when they issue... Read More

Supreme Court Blocks Curbside Voting in Alabama
2020 Elections
Supreme Court Blocks Curbside Voting in Alabama

MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) — The U.S. Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision Thursday blocked a lower court ruling allowing curbside voting in Alabama and waiving some absentee ballot requirements during the COVID-19 pandemic. Conservative justices granted Alabama’s request to stay a federal judge’s order that would... Read More

Supreme Court to Hear Case on Release of Full Mueller Report
Supreme Court
Supreme Court to Hear Case on Release of Full Mueller Report
July 2, 2020
by Dan McCue

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court announced on Thursday that it would decide whether Congress may see currently redacted parts of the report prepared by Special Counsel Robert Mueller during his investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election. As is their custom, the justices did not... Read More

High Court Strikes Down Ban on Taxpayer Funding for Religious Schools
Education
High Court Strikes Down Ban on Taxpayer Funding for Religious Schools
June 30, 2020
by Dan McCue

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court struck down a ban on taxpayer funding for religious schools on Tuesday, saying such institutions can't be prevented from participating in programs that use public funds to support private education. The 5-4 ruling upheld a Montana scholarship program that allows state... Read More

Justices Hold Booking.com Can Trademark Its Name
Business
Justices Hold Booking.com Can Trademark Its Name
June 30, 2020
by Dan McCue

WASHINGTON — A nearly unanimous Supreme Court said Tuesday that the travel website Booking.com can trademark its name, a ruling of high significance to other companies using a generic word followed by ".com." as a name. Lower courts had sided with Booking.com, but the Trump administration... Read More

Supreme Court Affirms Trump's Right to Say 'You're Fired' to Consumer Regulator
Supreme Court
Supreme Court Affirms Trump's Right to Say 'You're Fired' to Consumer Regulator
June 29, 2020
by Dan McCue

WASHINGTON - The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed President Donald Trump's ability to fire the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Monday, but left undisturbed the rest of the statute that created the agency in the wake of the 2008 global financial crisis. Writing for the... Read More

News From The Well
scroll top