NJ Supreme Court Bars Retroactive Application of Megan’s Law Amendments

[law.com – 5/30/18]

The New Jersey Supreme Court on Wednesday held 2014 amendments to Megan’s Law enhancing certain penalties for sex offenders who violate parole requirements unenforceable against four defendants based on the ex post facto clauses of both the state and federal constitutions.

Read more

Related:

NJ Supreme Court finds Ex Post Facto violations as applied to 4 sex offenders [floridaactioncommittee.org – 5/31/18]

 

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.  
 

8 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

The story is behind a paywall. The actual decision, “State v. Melvin Hester / Mark Warner / Anthony McKinney / Linwood Roundtree (A-91-16) (079228)” can be found at the following link (PDF Download):

https://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/attorneys/assets/opinions/supreme/a_91_16.pdf?cacheID=zw335DW

In a nutshell: the four defendants were sentenced to Community Supervision for Life (CSL), a special sentence that followed their custodial sentence. The decision stems from the fact that additional punishment was given to the defendants after their original sentencing. Read the syllabus from the opinion, the first two pages of the link, followed by the opinion.

It should be noted that the decision was 5-0, which means no dissent.

Another great win for Registrants! Another State saying retroactive application of new Megan’s Law rrstriction unconstitutionally violates ex post facto!

(BTW, Eric, it’s free to sign-up to that website – at no cost, it’s free – and you’ll get 5 free articles per month.)

It’s pretty sad that this case had to go all the way to NJ SC. It’s clearly an increase in punishment. But only in the bizzarro RC world does a post-sentence change of parole to “for life” have to be fought so long and hard. It still astonishes me the rabid defense and pursuit of all things RC. Laws, what laws? Constitution, what constitution? *SMH*

It appears they are still subject to life on parole. That I believe is the same as life in prison. It is a life sentence of punishment so I believe there has to be extra protection such as a person receiving life in prison gets. I think they get some kind of further due process or something like capital punishment does. Not sure but it sure seems like a life sentence should require heightened scrutiny.

Wow! Add New Jersey Supreme Court to the list that includes Pennsylvania Muñoz decision, Colorado’s Justice Matsch ruling, etc.:

https://www.law.com/njlawjournal/2018/08/01/supreme-court-sets-new-evidentiary-standard-in-child-sex-abuse-cases/

Wow! Add New Jersey Supreme Court to the list that includes Pennsylvania Muñoz decision, Colorado’s Justice Matsch ruling, etc. The New Jersey Supreme Court actually listened to the scientific research and findings! Maybe they can now look at the truly low recidivism rates for those convicted of sexual offenses and rule accordingly with regard to those as well. Who knows, maybe they’ll even begin to regard Megan’s Law restrictions and requirements as the ex post facto punishments they truly are!

https://www.law.com/njlawjournal/2018/08/01/supreme-court-sets-new-evidentiary-standard-in-child-sex-abuse-cases/