Quote (Surfpunk @ Sep 14 2021 08:22am)
I think the most consequential of this first batch of cases is the Wooden one. Any decision that adds clarification as to what construes spree vs individual crimes will have a significant effect on things like three-strikes laws, or prosecutions for things like rioters damaging or setting fire to multiple structures in a single riot.
Quote (18nomaUSEast @ Sep 13 2021 02:45pm)
First case has huge implications
Yeah, I've been reading up more on
Wooden v. United States and it definitely seems like an interesting case. In addition to the clarification between single v. spree crimes, there seems to be an issue (Claimed by Wooden, but rejected by the courts) of an unlawful search that precipitated the entire thing. Here's a bit more of the background on the case:
Quote
In November 2015, Conway Mason, a sheriff's department investigator in Monroe County, Tennessee, approached William Wooden and Janet Harris' residence as part of a search for fugitive Ben Harrelson. Mason asked to enter the home to stay warm. Wooden allowed him entry while he went to find Harris. Wooden retrieved a firearm in the hallway. Mason knew Wooden had previously been convicted of committing felony offenses. Officers advised Wooden to put down his weapon and confiscated the firearm. Then, they searched the home and discovered two more guns along with ammunition. In federal district court, Wooden was charged with being a felon in possession of firearms. Wooden requested that the evidence discovered during the search of his home be excluded from trial because the officers entered his home without a warrant and without his consent in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
During sentencing proceedings, the probation office report indicated that Wooden was classified as an armed career criminal under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) because he had more than three prior convictions for violent felonies: an aggravated assault in 1989, 10 burglaries in 1997, and a burglary in 2005. Wooden objected to the classification, arguing that the 1989 and 2005 offenses did not qualify as violent felonies and that the 10 burglaries in 1997 arose out of a single occasion and as such were a single predicate crime under the ACCA, meaning that the burglaries constituted only one legal instance on which to base the current classification, rather than 10 instances. The Eastern District of Tennessee rejected Wooden's objections, holding that the 2005 burglary did qualify as a violent felony and that the 10 burglaries qualified as 10 predicate offenses under the ACCA.
https://ballotpedia.org/Wooden_v._United_States