Other Constitutional Rulings :
A. Commerce Clause
B. Art. 1, § 10, Ex Post Facto Clause
C. First Amendment
D. Eighth Amendment
E. Miscellaneous Constitution Rulings
Eighth Amendment
Supreme Court Decisions
• Eighth Amendment - Death Penalty
Roper v. Simmons, 03-633 (3/1/05)
> Defendant, a 17 year old, committed murder and was
sentenced to death by a Missouri jury. Defendant challenged his
execution in a postconviction relief petition in state court, and the
Missouri Supreme Court found that the death penalty, as applied to a
person under the age of 18, violated the Eighth Amendment.
* Holding: The U.S. Supreme Court held in a 5-4 decision that
the death penalty violated the Eighth Amendment when applied to a
person under the age of 18.
• Eighth Amendment - Death Penalty
Kennedy v. Louisiana, 07-343 (6/25/08)
> Defendant was convicted in Louisiana state
court of the rape his eight year old daughter. Pursuant to a Louisiana
statute, the court imposed the death penalty for the offense. The
Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and defendant appealed
to the Supreme Court.
* Holding: The Supreme Court held in a 5-4 decision
that the death penalty violated the Eighth Amendment when applied to a
child rape conviction.
Sixth Circuit
• Eighth Amendment-Excessive Fines ClauseU.S. v. Ely, 06-5464 (11/16/06)
> Defendant was convicted of bulk cash smuggling in violation of 31 USC § 5316 for bringing $24,000 into the United States and failing to report it to Customs. Pursuant to 31 USC § 5332, the government sought to forfeit the entire amount of money. Defendant raised no constitutional objection to the forfeiture in the district court and the court ordered the money forfeited. Defendant then argued on appeal that forfeiture of the entire amount violated the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment.
* Holding: Where a defendant properly preserves an excessive fine argument in the district court, she is entitled to an assessment as to whether the fine is grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the offense considering the following factors: (1) the nature of the offense; (2) the connection to other illegal activities; (3) the source and likely use of the funds; (4) whether the conduct fit into the class the statute was designed to cover, i.e., money laundering, tax evasion, terrorism, or drug trafficking; and (5) the potential fine under the statute and guidelines. Although the court speculated that defendant’s argument may have benefitted from an analysis of the factors in the district court, the court found no plain error in the district court forfeiture order. Thus, the sentence was affirmed.
• Cruel and Unusual Punishment
U.S. v. Watkins, 05-4551 (12/14/07)
> Defendant was convicted of six armed robberies and six counts of brandishing a firearm during the robberies. At sentencing, the district court imposed a combined sentence of 1,772 months incarceration. Defendant appealed and argued that the sentence amounted to cruel and unusual punishment given his lack of criminal history.
* Holding: Relying on prior precedent, the court held that the imposition of mandatory consecutive 25 year sentences under 18 USC § 924(c) for carrying firearms during violent robbery offenses did not violate the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. Accordingly, defendant’s conviction was affirmed.
• Cruel and Unusual Punishment
U.S. v. Jones, 08-1352 (7/7/09)
> Defendant was convicted of distributing 108.96 grams of crack cocaine. As a result, he was subjected to the mandatory ten year sentence under 21 USC § 841(b)(1)(A). Defendant appealed and argued that the sentence constituted cruel and unusual punishment because it was disproportionate to the offense committed.
* Holding: Applying the “narrow proportionality principle” from the Supreme Court’s decision in Harmelin v. Michigan, the court found that the ten year sentence was not disproportionate to the crime, even considering that defendant’s criminal history category was category I. Accordingly, defendant’s sentence was affirmed.