Court sidesteps several new gun cases, including
challenge to state assault weapons ban
By Lindsay Whitehurst
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court sidestepped a new set of Second Amendment fights Tuesday, declining to hear a challenge to an assault weapons ban in Illinois and sending other gun cases back to lower courts, including a challenge to the law used to convict Hunter Biden.
The moves came after the justices upheld a gun law intended to protect victims of domestic violence, the first guns rights case following a landmark ruling two years ago that expanded gun rights. The court still has another firearm case on its docket for the fall, weighing a Biden administration appeal overregulation of difficult-to-trace ghost guns.
The justices left for another day questions about other state and federal gun restrictions that have arisen in the wake of the 2022 ruling known as Bruen, which said that gun laws must be grounded in historic tradition to stay on the books.
Justice Samuel Alito disagreed with the high court's decision not to hear a challenge to then Illinois assault weapons ban in the fall. Justice Clarence Thomas referred to the law as "highly suspect" and wrote in a statement that he hopes to take up the case after lower courts reach a final judgment.
The law passed after a mass shooting at a 2022 Independence Day parade in the Chicago suburbs left seven people dead. Ten states and the District of Columbia now have bans on semiautomatic guns often referred to as assault weapons, according to the gun control group Brady, which tracks the legislation.
Another gun case challenging the law used to convict Hunter Biden was sent back to lower courts for another look after the high court's June decision in the domestic-violence-related gun case.
The justices told the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals to take another look at their ruling that struck down a longstanding ban on drug users having guns. Hunter Biden's defense attorneys have cited the ruling as they fight the case filed against him for buying a gun during a period when he was addicted to drugs.
The Supreme Court also sent back to lower courts several cases challenging a law against people having guns after they are convicted of crimes. That includes the case of Bryan Range, a Pennsylvania man convicted of misstating his income to get food stamps for his family in 1995. An appeals court decided a lifetime gun ban violated his Second Amendment rights.
The justices also sent back a case challenging a gun law in New York, the same state that gave rise to the high court's Bruen ruling.
New York passed a new measure after the justices struck down its strict concealed carry law. It opened the door to more people getting licenses while putting restrictions on where guns could be carried, including playgrounds, schools, theaters, places that serve alcohol and buses.
An appeals court blocked parts of that measure but allowed the state to continue banning firearms in certain "sensitive" locations and denying gun licenses to dangerous people.
Court refuses to hear bite mark case
MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) — The U.S. Supreme Court declined Tuesday to review the case of an Alabama man who has spent decades in prison for a murder conviction supported by recanted and discredited testimony about bite marks.
Charles M. McCrory was convicted of murder for the 1985 killing of his wife, Julie Bonds, who was found beaten to death in her home. Key evidence against him was the testimony of a forensic odontologist who said that two small marks on the victim's left shoulder matched McCrory's teeth. The odontologist later said he "fully" recants that 1985 testimony. He wrote in an affidavit that modern science has exposed the limitations of bite mark evidence and that there is no way to positively link the marks to any one person.
Lawyers with the Innocence Project and the Southern Center for Human Rights, which are representing McCrory, had asked the Supreme Court to review an Alabama court's decision denying his request for a new trial. Justices turned down the petition mostly without comment.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in a statement that the case raises "difficult questions about the adequacy of current postconviction remedies to correct a conviction secured by what we now know was faulty science."
"One in four people exonerated since 1989 were wrongfully convicted based on false or misleading forensic evidence introduced at their trials. Hundreds if not thousands of innocent people may currently be incarcerated despite a modern consensus that the central piece of evidence at their trials lacked any scientific basis," Sotomayor wrote.
Sotomayor wrote that she voted against reviewing the case because the constitutional question raised by McCrory has not "percolated sufficiently in the lower courts." But she urged state and federal lawmakers to establish paths for inmates to challenge "wrongful convictions that rest on repudiated forensic testimony."
The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals, in rejecting his bid for a new trial, ruled that McCrory had failed to show that result of his 1985 trial "probably would have been different" if the new forensic guidelines regarding bite marks had been used.
The Innocence Project says that least 36 people have been wrongfully convicted through the use of bite mark evidence. A Florida man was freed in 2020 after spending 37 years in a Florida prison for a 1983 rape and murder he did not commit. The conviction was based partly on faulty bite mark analysis.
Bonds was found beaten to death May 31, 1985, in the home she shared with her toddler son. The couple were divorcing and lived separately at the time. McCrory has maintained his innocence. He told police that he had been at the home the night before to do laundry and say goodnight to his son. His attorneys argued that there was no physical evidence linking McCrory to the crime and that hair found clutched in the decedent's hand did not belong to McCrory.
Bonds' family, who believed McCrory was responsible, hired private prosecutors for the case against McCrory. They hired Florida forensic dentist Dr. Richard Souviron, who gained fame as an expert after testifying in the trial of serial killer Ted Bundy. McCrory was convicted and sentenced to life in prison.
Souviron later recanted his testimony. McCrory's attorneys said two other forensic experts disputed that the marks were bite marks at all.
McCrory's attorneys wrote in their petition that that the current district attorney had offered to resentence Mr. McCrory to time served, which would allow him to immediately leave prison, in exchange for a guilty plea.
"Mr. McCrory declined, unwilling to admit to a crime he did not commit," his attorneys wrote.
McCrory was denied parole in 2023. He will be eligible again in 2028.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
http://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
