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

Supreme Court Sounds Ready to Support Public Aid to Religious Schools
Education
Supreme Court Sounds Ready to Support Public Aid to Religious Schools

WASHINGTON — Some Supreme Court justices on Wednesday sounded ready to rule that states offering scholarships or subsidies to private schools must include those operated by churches. The court’s conservatives, including Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., said that excluding private schools because they are religious... Read More

Roberts Admonishes House Prosecution, White House Defense
Impeachment
Roberts Admonishes House Prosecution, White House Defense

WASHINGTON (AP) — Chief Justice John Roberts drew little attention to himself in the beginning 12 hours of his first impeachment trial. But it was just before 1 a.m., as tempers on the floor had started to wear thin, that he reminded senators, House impeachment managers and... Read More

With Fate of Roe V. Wade Unsure, Abortion Fight Shifts to New Territory
Health
With Fate of Roe V. Wade Unsure, Abortion Fight Shifts to New Territory

Jan. 22 marks the 47th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the landmark case that legalized abortion nationwide. Those on both sides of the furious debate say this could be the year when everything changes. In March, the Supreme Court will hear its first abortion case since... Read More

Supreme Court to Weigh Pennsylvania, New Jersey Birth Control Mandate Challenge
Health
Supreme Court to Weigh Pennsylvania, New Jersey Birth Control Mandate Challenge

The U.S. Supreme Court will review a Philadelphia federal judge’s decision last year to block new Trump administration rules that would have let almost any employer deny female workers no-cost birth control coverage by citing religious and moral objections. In an order late Friday, the justices... Read More

Justices Reject Appeal of Obamacare, Grand Jury Secrecy Cases
Supreme Court
Justices Reject Appeal of Obamacare, Grand Jury Secrecy Cases
January 21, 2020
by Dan McCue

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected a request that it resolve a dispute over the authority of a judge to order the disclosure of secret grand jury material in rare circumstances. The underlying case stems from a researcher's 40-year quest to solve the disappearance... Read More

Supreme Court to Tackle Issues of Religion and School Choice This Week
Political News
Supreme Court to Tackle Issues of Religion and School Choice This Week
January 21, 2020
by Dan McCue

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Wednesday will wade into a thorny battle over school-choice programs and state aid for religious schools as it weighs a request from three Montana families to allow a state scholarship program to fund their children's Christian education. The petitioners in... Read More

Straight From The Well
scroll top