Supreme Court Concludes that DUI is not a “Violent Felony” for Purposes of Armed Career Criminal Law
Very few DUI cases find their way to the United States Supreme Court. Generally DUI cases are a matter of state law and over the years, the Supreme Court has been fairly deferential to the arguments put forth by lawyers representing the government and police departments. Obviously everyone supports the goal of removing impaired drivers from the road, and groups like MADD have done a good job in keeping political pressure on lawmakers to make DUI punishments harsher.
Nevertheless, the law does not treat every DUI defendant the same way because some DUI offenders are more culpable than others. Further, the law requires that the prosecutor prove his case. It is not enough that the police officer “thought” that an individual was under the influence – there needs to be proof, which can include blood test, breath tests and other types of evidence.
Recently, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case of Begay v. United States, a decision which was released in April, 2008. In the Begay case, the defendant (Begay) was arrested in New Mexico for unlawfully possessing a firearm, a violation of federal law. Mr. Begay was a convicted felon and thus was not permitted to possess a gun.
Following a trial, the federal judge hearing the case sentenced Mr. Begay to 15 years under the Armed Career Criminal Act, which mandates a 15 year sentence to a felon who is convicted of possessing a firearm and who has three or more convictions for “violent felonies.” The violent felonies relied up on by the judge were Mr. Begay’s 12 DUI convictions.
Clearly, Mr. Begay is not a sympathetic defendant. However, the law requires three or more convictions for violent felonies. The Supreme Court held that DUIs are not violent felonies because a DUI is usually not an intentioal act to hurt another person, and because the examples of violent felonies set out in the Armed Career Criminal Act were of a substantially different nature than a DUI.
Does this mean that Mr. Begay is not a dangerous person or that he should not be incarcerated? No. It does mean that he should not be convicted of a crime when his conduct does not equal the conduct procsribed in the statute.
Filed under Punishment issues, Trial issues by on Oct 4th, 2008. Comment. 
The criminal law blogosphere has been discussing the case of Troy Anthony Davis – a Georgia man who was convicted of murdering a Savannah police officer in 1989. Mr. Davis was convicted of this crime based on testimony from multiple eyewitnesses and was sentenced to death. Just go to Technorati.com and enter “Troy Anthony Davis.”
Recently, Mr. Davis’ attorneys filed an appeal to both the Georgia Supreme Court as well as the United States Supreme Court arguing that the conviction should be overturned because several of the eyewitnesses have “recanted” their testimony. The attorneys argue that to execute a defendant with a “strong claim of innocence” would be a violation of the Bill of Rights prohibition against “cruel and unusual” punishment.
My colleague, blogger Paul Kennedy of Houston, weighs in on this controversy with a blog post entitled “Its not Cruel and Unusual to Execute an Innocent Man.” Paul argues:
that just because a citizen was given a fair trial doesn’t mean that the verdict is correct? When it comes to deciding whether or not a fellow citizen’s life is to be taken away by the state, the very least we can do is make certain that the state is killing the right person.
On the other hand, Atlanta Journal-Constitution editorial writer Jim Wooten says this:
Before you buy-in to the Troy Anthony Davis PR campaign, go to the source. Read for yourself the Georgia Supreme Court decision handed down March 17 that dealt with quality of the alleged recantations in the murder of Savannah police officer Mark Allen MacPhail. Cut out the spin. Read Justice Harold Melton’s majority opinion.
There have been many studies which demonstrate that eyewitness testimony can sometimes be seriously flawed. Often our memories of what we genuinely believed that we saw are simply incorrect. On the other hand, eyewitness testimony has long been accepted by our courts as an acceptable basis for finding criminal liability.
Like many of my fellow bloggers, I am concerned with the prospect of putting an innocent man to death. On the other hand, I think that the family of the slain Savannah police officer does deserve justice.
I encourage you to take a look at the Georgia Supreme Court opinion. Here are some of the facts that are not in dispute:
In the early morning hours of August 19, 1989, Troy Davis was at a pool hall with his friends Sylvester Coles and Darrell Collins. Nearby a homeless man named Larry Young was exiting a convenience store with a six pack of beer. Coles approached Young to ask for a beer but Young refused the request. Coles then followed Young, cursing and screaming at him. Davis and Coles circled around a nearby building and together with Coles, surrounded Young. Davis then pistol whipped Young, severely injuring him. An off duty police officer, Mark MacPhail observed the altercation and approached Davis and Coles. Officer MacPhail was subseqently shot and died on the scene. Davis says that Cole was the triggerm, and Coles points the finger at Davis.
Earlier that night a man named Michael Cooper was shot at a party. Several eyewitnesses named Troy Davis as the shooter. Bullets removed from Cooper’s body during treatment matched bullets removed from Officer MacPhail’s body.
During the investigation, several witnesses were interviewed by the police and stated that Davis had confessed the murder of Officer MacPhail. Larry Young identified Davis as the person who struck him on the head with a pistol. Darrell Collins, who had run from the immediate area of the Young-Davis/Coles altercation, testified that the person who struck MacPhail also shot him.
Subsequent to the trial that resulted in Davis’ conviction, several of the witnesses noted above changed their stories.
Davis was convicted of murder, not for being a really bad person. A jury heard the evidence presented, including the witness testimony and concluded that Davis was the murderer.
I encourage you to read the heartfelt opinions of fellow bloggers who sincerely oppose the death penalty and who stand for the principle that the state needs a great deal of certainty before taking a convicted criminal’s life. You will note that few, if any, of these bloggers report the undisputed factual background of this case. Does it matter? Should the Georgia courts ordered a new trial? Does the recitation of facts shapre your opinion? What do you think?
Filed under Punishment issues, Trial issues by on Oct 18th, 2008. 9 Comments.
