About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


1 1 (February 27, 2020)

handle is hein.crs/govcapv0001 and id is 1 raw text is: Mathena v. Malvo-A Challenge to Life Without Parole for the Juvenile D.C. Sniper Updated February 27, 2020 UPDATE: On February 24, 2020, Virginia Governor Ralph Northam signed into law HB 35, which provides that any person previously sentenced to life imprisonment without parolefor offenses committed as a juvenile shall be eligible for parole after serving 20 years in prison. The new law effectively abolishes juvenile life without parole sentences in Virginia, and Lee Boyd Malvo 's attorney expects that it will render Malvo efigibleJbrparole in irginia in 2022. The parties in Mathena v. Malvo filed a stipulation of dismissal in light of HB 35, and on February 26, 2020, the Supreme Court dismissed the case. Federal law and multiple states (including Maryland, where Malvo also received several life without parole sentences) still allow sentences of life without parole forjuvenile offenders in some circumstances. However any Supreme Court decision on the constitutionality of those sentencing practices will have to await a future case. The original post from October 10, 2019, is below. On October 16, 2019, the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral argument in Vathena v. 1falvo. Mathena may be of general interest in the D.C. area because it involves a challenge to the criminal sentence of Lee Boyd Malvo, one of the Beltway snipers. But the case also raises a novel legal question concerning the scope of Miller v. Alabama and Montgomer . Louisiana, in which the Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment limits the circumstances where juvenile offenders may be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. This Sidebar first surveys key Eighth Amendment jurisprudence relevant to Mathena, before providing background on the case and outlining the parties' arguments before the Supreme Court. The Sidebar concludes by discussing possible outcomes in the case and their implications for Congress. The Eighth Amendment The Eighth Amendment, which applies to both the states and the federal government, provides: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. The Supreme Court has interpreted the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishments to categorically prohibit the use of certain forms of punishment that superadd terror, pain. or disgrace, such as drawing and quartering, hard and painful labor, and revocation of the citizenship of a natural-born citizen. In addition, the Court has held that certain punishments that are permissible in some circumstances are nonetheless unconstitutional as applied to particular classes of defendants. For Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov LSB10350 CRS Lega Sidebar Prepaed for Membeivs and Cornm ittees o4 Cor~qress ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------