Cover image of Mathena v. Malvo

Mathena v. Malvo Podcasts

Read more

4 of The Best Podcast Episodes for Mathena v. Malvo. A collection of podcasts episodes with or about Mathena v. Malvo, often where they are interviewed.

Read more

4 of The Best Podcast Episodes for Mathena v. Malvo. A collection of podcasts episodes with or about Mathena v. Malvo, often where they are interviewed.

Updated daily with the latest episodes

Episode artwork

Mathena v. Malvo - Post-Argument SCOTUScast

Play
Read more
On October 16, 2019, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Mathena v. Malvo, a case which concerns the scope of a new constitutional rule when applied retroactively on collateral review.
In 2004, respondent Lee Boyd Malvo was convicted in Virginia on various counts of capital murder due to his participation in the “DC Sniper” attacks of 2002. As he was 17 years old at the time, he avoided the death penalty and was sentenced to four terms of life imprisonment without parole. In 2012, the Supreme Court held in Miller v. Alabama that sentencing a person younger than 18 to mandatory life imprisonment without parole violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments. In 2016, the Court then held in Montgomery v. Louisiana that Miller had announced a new substantive rule applicable retroactively in cases on state collateral review.
When Malvo raised these issues on collateral review, the Fourth Circuit held that his sentences of life without parole must be vacated based on Miller, and the cases remanded for resentencing to determine whether his crimes reflected a “permanent incorrigibility” that would justify reimposition of the life-without-parole sentence. This judgment created a conflict with the Supreme Court of Virginia, which had concluded that Montgomery did not extend the applicability of Miller to discretionary sentencing schemes (including life without parole), but only applied Miller retroactively to cases on collateral review involving mandatory sentences of life without parole.
The Supreme Court thereafter granted certiorari to address whether the Fourth Circuit erred in concluding that Montgomery--when addressing whether the new constitutional rule announced in Miller applies retroactively on collateral review--may properly be interpreted as modifying and substantively expanding the very rule whose retroactivity was in question.
To discuss the case, we have Kent Scheidegger, Legal Director of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.
Nov 02 2019 · 11mins
Episode artwork

SCOTUS Mathena v. Malvo, Case No. 18-217

Play
Read more
Criminal Procedure: Is a sentence of life without parole, when imposed as an alternative to a death sentence, a mandatory sentence for a juvenile seeking relief under the Eighth Amendment? - Argued: Wed, 16 Oct 2019 8:54:47 EDT
Oct 21 2019 ·
Episode artwork

Case: 18-217 Mathena v. Malvo (2019-10-16)

Play
Read more

QUESTION PRESENTED:

In Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), this Court held that "mandatory life without parole for those under the age of 18 at the time of their crimes violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on 'cruel and unusual punishments.'" Id. at 465. Four years later, in Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016), the Court held that "Miller announced a substantive rule of constitutional law" that, under Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989), must be given "retroactive effect" in cases where direct review was complete when Miller was decided. Montgomery, 136 S. Ct. at 736. 

The question presented is: 

Did the Fourth Circuit err in concluding-in direct conflict with Virginia's highest court and other courts-that a decision of this Court (Montgomery) addressing whether a new constitutional rule announced in an earlier decision (Miller) applies retroactively on collateral review may properly be interpreted as modifying and substantively expanding the very rule whose retroactivity was in question?


Argument Transcript: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2019/18-217_k5fl.pdf

--- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/scotus/support
Oct 21 2019 · 1hr 2mins