PA: Cumberland County DA Freed to request U.S. Supreme Court review of sex offender decision

Roughly two weeks ago the Pennsylvania Supreme Court deemed the state’s current sex offender registration law to be punishment and ultimately barred by both the state and federal constitutions when applied retroactively.

That decision may now end up under review from the highest court in the country.

Cumberland County District Attorney David Freed said Friday his office would ask the Supreme Court of the United States to review the decision, which was handed down on July 19. Full Article

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...

 

  1. Submissions must be in English
  2. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  3. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  4. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  5. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Always use person-first language.
  6. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  7. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  8. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  9. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  10. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address that are not personally identifiable.
  11. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  12. Please do not post in all Caps.
  13. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  14. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  15. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  16. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  17. Please do not solicit funds
  18. No discussions about weapons
  19. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  20. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  21. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  22. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
  23. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

285 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

http://cases.justia.com/pennsylvania/superior-court/2017-2191-eda-2016-0.pdf?ts=1507140749

COMMONWEALTH V WILLIAMS THIS IS THE CASE THAT WAS HIGHLY NOTED DURING THE APPEAL PROCESS OF MUNIZ, REED, GILBERT!

THANK GOD FOR GETTING THIS RIGHT!

MY HUSBAND WANTS YOU ALL TO KNOW, TRUST IN GOD AND WE ALL WILL PREVAIL!

That depends upon your conviction date. If your conviction date was prior to the enactment of the law requiring registration (i.e., prior to 2011), then you are not required to register. That’s where ex post facto comes in: you had already been convicted, they cannot heap on more punishment (i.e., registration) afterwards.
*Obviously, consult with a lawyer for legal advice. (I am not a lawyer.)

Yes, anyone convicted prior to Sorna and who was not to register under Sorna per Muniz Decision is effected by this Williams Decision for failure to register convictions that are illegal due to Muniz.

My husband wanted to confirm what AJ stated about the state ruling back in July 2017 of Muniz.

In Commonwealth v Williams they state this,

“Thus, the binding precedent arising out of Muniz is LIMITED to the finding that SORNA’s registration requirements violate the ex post facto clause of THE PENNSYLVANIA CONSTITUTION. ”

Our Us Justice in our District only had the power to stay the federal ruling.

The state ruling is still binding!

What it means, Paul is the courts agree with defendants whether or not the, Da Freed was granted a stay on Muniz the courts still have to honor the state constution violation under Muniz. The Federal Ruling of Muniz is stayed pending appeal, but not the state ruling.

http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Superior/out/judgment%20order%20-%20vacated-remanded%20-%2010322271522995966.pdf

Paul 2 – repost what you wrote I cant read this to my husband. Its all up and down!

Anyone hear this too that the Commonwealth of Pa filed its appeal on the Muniz Decision?

Word has it that they filed and are waiting to see if US Supreme Court will grant or deny there appeal like Snyder v Doe in Michigan?

Please let me know who to look it up.

Baller vs. Bullshit! 😀

I had a couple of detectives show up at my house yesterday saying I had failed to register after having moved back to PA in July, and had 3 days to contact a detective on the notice they left or I’d be arrested. I went off on them because, based on the law and decisions in cases like Tommy Lee Jackson v Commonwealth, I knew that that I did not have to register in PA and told them to bugger off and that I had not intention of registering. I called Joseph Ratasiewicz of Casamento & Ratasiewicz because he handled the Jackson case successfully and I figured I’d need to have him file a Writ of Mandamus. Today I tried calling the detective on the notice and couldn’t reach her, so for shits and giggles I called PSP’s Meghans law unit and was told I in fact did not have to register, that they had finished my file yesterday and had already mailed out a notice. She gave me the impression that mine was not the only file she was going through. I don’t know that this is related to Muniz, but if it is, they are already up to last names starting with “D.”

Just an FYI. Casamento & Ratasiewicz apparently charges $4500 to get ya off the list. Apparently they are having a good run because Joseph Ratasiewicz said they got a guy in Pittsburgh who moved here from NY off the list last week.

….

My husband went to see his attorney yesterday, the Commonwealth v Williams case, is a home run case for anyone who is charged with SORNA Violations in the state of PA.

In the Commonwealth v Williams case, the Superior admitted they needed to fix a July 18 2017 order due to the Muniz Decision coming out a day later on July 19 2017. The Superior Court, states “The Commonwealth and the Appealant both agree.”

My attorney is saying that the Superior Court, agreed that they need to fix there wrong. They guided the defendant to file what is needed to get back in front of them to fix there wrong.

They overturned a failure to register and failure to provide accurate information to the PSP which Williams was in prison for 8 to 19 years, or close to that. They overturned the sentence stating, Muniz applies to Williams and should of never been required to register under SORNA, per Muniz, PA ex post facto clause.

Anyone with failure to register convictions, or charges. Take the Commonwealth v Williams to your attorney and have your case dismissed.

Check this one out looks to me like we do not have to comply with SORNA?
http://www.lycolaw.org/Cases/opinions/2017/Smith111317L.pdf

My husband has reached out to his attorney. In his case the DA requested a 30 day brief to be filed to the court. Time runs out real soon and there brief would be a complete lie to the court. After reading this case there is no arguement the DA would be able to sell to the court. I will fill everyone in on my husband case by the end of the week. God Bless everyone!

here is a link to the Bill that PA is going to ram through legislation in response to Muniz

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/Legis/PN/Public/btCheck.cfm?txtType=PDF&sessYr=2017&sessInd=0&billBody=H&billTyp=B&billNbr=1952&pn=2770

New proposed bill NO. 1952 to fix SORNA was emailed to me can’t find link Anyone read it yet? Any info on what it means?

One thing they left out is what requirements, residence, school, vehicle, and employment we the only required information from PRE SORNA. Internet Identifiers were apart of SORNA, deemed unconstitutional under Muniz.

And IDSI was lifetime, One time per year, with petition rights after 25 years.

Did anyone see the new requirements in House Bill 1952.

We would assume exactly the same as before.

Located all the new Requirements, DID NOT NOTICE A VEHICLE AS BEING REQUIRED. Oddly, but its not there. But is it spoken of when they state what will be provided to in the internet notification.

Sadly, this will pass. But all failure to register charges will need to be overturned and dismissed because my husband or many others were not supposed be under SORNA.

But due to the new Bill 1952, it looks like we still need to comply with the BIG FOUR, House, School, Employment, Car.

I’ve read through the proposed post-Muniz PA legislative bill (R-Marsico), Offenders will NOT be removed from PA ML, with possible exception to those whose offense occurred prior to April 1996, and where SORNA 2012 revisions forced a post-facto requirement of those offenders. In fact, the proposed bill seems an obvious effort to circumvent the PA Supreme Court’s post-facto ruling (Muniz v PA), wherein the Court found the retroactive application of SORNA (to those offenders sentenced prior to Dec 2012) both punitive and post-facto.

Regardless, PA legislatiors will NEVER allow sex offenders to escape ML or any other form of public reporting applications, which are widely regarded as punitive, beyond their stated public safety intention, and largely ineffective across most metrics, aside from ML reporting violation arrests (non-recidivistic).

The newly proposed PA ML legislation update will pass, with little to no effort… and most registrants will continue with their tiered terms, years or lifetime requirements. Furthermore, new unrelated but legislation is being passed and proposed… US passport sex offender identifier, and PA’s newly proposed sex offender housing restrictions.

We all know that sex offender registries are first and foremost punishment. They serve political ambitions, the public’s fears and society’s anger. If there are truly such deep public safety concerns, where are the be public registries for other offender-classes that have affected children’s lives adversely… drug dealers, gang members, domestic violence, etc.

The PA Supreme Court ruled wisely on the Munuz case being retroactive, but law makers will not abide sex offenders any relief

Today (1-22-2018) the US Supreme Court has denied the petition in this case.