Retroactive Verdicts: The Future of Criminal Justice Reform?

On October 16, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States heard Mathena v. Malvo, a complex case with the potential to completely reform the criminal justice system. Lee Boyd Malvo was convicted for the murder of two individuals in 2004 and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. [1] He was only seventeen at the time. [2] While a multitude of recent cases have addressed life without parole, Malvo’s case is unique because it implicates the use of retroactive verdicts in criminal justice cases. If the Court rules in Malvo’s favor, it would open the door to thousands of criminal justice cases being revisited due to their now-unconstitutional sentencing practices.

In advocating for retroactive verdicts, Malvo’s case is heavily influenced by two United States Supreme Court cases: Miller v. Alabama (2012) and Montgomery v. Louisiana (2016). In Miller, petitioner Evan Miller was convicted of beating another boy with a baseball bat and setting his trailer on fire with the victim inside. He was sentenced to life without parole as a teenager, but appealed his sentence, arguing that it was a violation of the Eighth Amendment to hold him to the same standard as adult offenders. The Court ruled in favor of Miller, setting the precedent that no juvenile can be sentenced to life without parole. [3] The Miller ruling does not appear to directly apply to Malvo’s case as it is only applies to cases after 2012. However, in the more recent ruling of Montgomery v. Louisiana, the sentencing of juveniles to life without parole was deemed unconstitutional in all cases, testing the full extent of retroactive verdicts. [4] 

Miller’s application to only new cases was challenged in 2016 by Henry Montgomery, an inmate sentenced to life without parole at seventeen. Montgomery argued that the ban on sentencing juveniles to life should also be applied to his case. In a 6-3 majority, the Court sided with Montgomery, stating that their decision in Miller v. Alabama, “announced a substantive rule of constitutional law, which, like other substantive rules, is retroactive.” [5] This means that any of the over two thousand inmates who were sentenced to life without parole as juveniles have the constitutional right to appeal their sentences. [6] This would appear to only slightly decrease prison overcrowding, but when applied to other criminal justice reform cases, the effects could be immense.

However, before retroaction could have any impact on other reform cases, the Supreme Court must first rule in Malvo’s favor. Based on the citation of “substantive constitutional rule” in Montgomery v. Louisiana (2016), there is substantial precedent suggesting that the Court will rule in favor of Malvo. A change to “substantive constitutional rule,” which is a precedent that alters the constitutional definition of crimes, punishment, or civil responsibilities, was used to justify retroactive verdicts in the 2004 Supreme Court case of Schriro v. Summerlin. [7] Summerlin, a man who was sentenced to death by a state trial judge for murdering a loan collector, appealed his case citing Ring v. Arizona (2002), a Supreme Court decision which established that only juries can sentence someone to death, not judges. [8] Summerlin argued that the decision in Ring must apply retroactively to his case because he thought the decision changed not only the procedure of the law, but also the substance. [9] The Court ultimately ruled against Summerlin on the grounds that Ring’s holding was procedural, not substantive. However, the Court did clarify that “new substantive rules generally apply retroactively.” [10] Thus, Montgomery v. Louisiana was able to build upon this opinion because it reinforced the validity of retroactive verdicts in cases that alter the substantive law. [11] Miller v. Alabama also altered substantive law by redefining the constitutionality of life without parole for juveniles. [12] Considering the similarities between Mathena v. Malvo and Montgomery v. Louisiana, where both concern juvenile sentencing to life without parole, the Court should rule in Malvo’s favor to follow precedent.

Malvo’s case would open the gates to thousands of new criminal justice reform cases and completely change how activists pursue change. When considering both juvenile sentencing to life without parole and the other applications of this precedent, such as the legitimacy of non-unanimous jury verdicts, the possible applications are immense. This could shift how activists tackle reform as it demonstrates that appeals cases, while time-consuming, can pay off in tackling a whole system, rather than a single inmate. In return, activists may begin to flood the courts with cases rather than the streets in protest. 

One area of criminal justice reform that could benefit from retroactive verdicts in the future is non-unanimous jury verdicts. On October 7, 2019, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments for Ramos v. Louisiana. Ramos was sentenced to life in prison without parole by a non-unanimous jury for second-degree murder. While the jury’s decision was 10-2 and Louisiana state law only requires ten jurors in agreement to reach a guilty verdict, Ramos is arguing this violates his Sixth Amendment right to a unanimous jury verdict. Since Ramos’ case is a state one, not federal, Louisiana is arguing that the Fourteenth Amendment does not incorporate his Sixth Amendment right at a state level. [13] If the Court were to rule in Ramos’ favor, this would serve as a prime candidate for pursuing retroactive verdicts. Since jury verdicts are substantive law, activists could pursue other cases of non-unanimous jury decisions with hopes of vacating an inmate’s sentence and obtaining a retroactive precedent. This would permit over thirty-two thousand inmates in Louisiana to appeal their sentences that were decided by non-unanimous juries. [14]

Should the Court rule in Malvo’s favor, over two thousand people sentenced to life without parole could appeal their sentences. [15] On a larger scale, the reinforcement of the legitimacy of retroactive verdicts provides activists with a new method of achieving criminal reform: justice for future defendants in criminal cases could be extended to hundreds of thousands of citizens serving the same now-unconstitutional sentence. Over time, this has the capacity to decrease overcrowding in prisons throughout the United States by correcting previous injustice. Thus, Mathena v. Malvo has the potential to bring overdue, tangible reform to the U.S. criminal justice system.

[1] “Mathena v. Malvo.” American Civil Liberties Union. Accessed October 9, 2019. https://www.aclu.org/cases/mathena-v-malvo.

[2] “Mathena v. Malvo.” Oyez. Accessed October 8, 2019. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2019/18-217. 

[3] “Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012).” Justia Law. Accessed October 9, 2019. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/567/460/. 

[4] “Montgomery v. Louisiana.” Oyez. Accessed October 8, 2019. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2015/14-280.

[5]“Montgomery v. Louisiana, 577 U.S. ___ (2016).” Justia Law. Accessed October 30, 2019. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/577/14-280/. 

[6] “‘When I Die...They'll Send Me Home’: Youth Sentenced to Life in Prison without Parole in California, An Update.” Human Rights Watch. July 7, 2015. Accessed October 30, 2019. https://www.hrw.org/report/2012/03/01/when-i-dietheyll-send-me-home/youth-sentenced-life-prison-without-parole.

[7] “Substantive Law.” Legal Information Institute. Accessed October 30, 2019. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/substantive_law.

[8] “Schriro v. Summerlin.” Legal Information Institute. June 24, 2004. Accessed October 30, 2019. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-526.ZS.html. 

[9] “Schriro v. Summerlin.” Oyez. Accessed October 27, 2019. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2003/03-526. 

[10] Scalia. “Schriro v. Summerlin.” Legal Information Institute. June 24, 2004. Accessed October 30, 2019. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-526.ZO.html. 

[11] “Montgomery v. Louisiana.” Oyez. Accessed October 8, 2019. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2015/14-280.

[12] “Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012).” Justia Law. Accessed October 9, 2019. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/567/460/. 

[13] Duggan, Philip, and Connor Grant-Knight. “Ramos v. Louisiana.” Legal Information Institute. October 7, 2019. Accessed October 30, 2019.  https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/18-5924. 

[14] “Ramos v. Louisiana.” Oyez. Accessed October 30, 2019. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2019/18-5924. 

[15] “‘When I Die...They'll Send Me Home’: Youth Sentenced to Life in Prison without Parole in California, An Update.” Human Rights Watch. July 7, 2015. Accessed October 30, 2019. https://www.hrw.org/report/2012/03/01/when-i-dietheyll-send-me-home/youth-sentenced-life-prison-without-parole.