Harmelin v. Michigan 1991

1. Harmelin v. Michigan 1991 By Jessica Moorefield

2. What Happened? May 12, 1986 • Two undercover policemen witnessed Ronald Allen Harmelin doing a U-turn at a red light without stopping first • Harmelin was cooperative in stopping • Warned officers of his legitimate concealed weapon and its corresponding license • Seemed nervous • Officers claimed they feared their safety because Harmelin had bulge in his shirt pocket so they searched him • Recovered marijuana and placed him under arrest • More drugs were found • Assorted pills and capsules, dials and baggies of white powder, and a telephone beeper

3. What Happened? Continued • After placing Harmelin in jail and following standard procedure the car was impounded and searched • 672.5 grams of cocaine along with $2,900 was found in the trunk • 672.5grams is the equivalence of 1.5 pounds or 65,000 doses • Harmelin was a first time offender • Harmelin’s case was heard by the Oakland Circuit Court • Convicted for possessing 672.5 grams of cocaine and sentenced to life in prison without chance of parole in his future

4. What’s wrong with the sentencing? • In Michigan, the life without parole charge is the highest and most severe conviction • Reserved for first degree murder, the manufacture, distribution, or possession with intent to manufacture or distribute 650 grams or more of narcotics; and possession of 650 grams or more of narcotics • In Alabama, the equivalence of that crime would be five years in prison • To get the life without parole sentence for a first time drug offender in Alabama one must • Possess ten kilograms or more of cocaine • Solem v. Helm 1983 – Three-Prong Test • Harmelin felt his conviction violated his 8th amendment right and was disproportionate to his crime • excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

5. Michigan Court of Appeals January 9, 1989 • Michigan Court of Appeals agreed to hear Harmelin’s case • Managed to find evidence supporting that a constitutional right had been violated • Reversed the circuit court’s decision • When Harmelin went for his hearing on March 9, 1989, the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed their prior decision and affirmed the Oakland Circuit Court’s ruling. • After going through the Michigan Court of Appeals’ inability to make their mind up, Harmelin decided that the Supreme Court needed to hear his case.

6. Supreme Court Agrees to Hear the Case • Supreme Court will hear a case casethreatens the federal law in any way • Since Harmelin shed light on the 8th amendment right being threatened by the Oakland Circuit Court and Michigan Court of Appeals decisions, the Supreme Court decided to hear the case. • Writ of certiorari granted • Plaintiff: Michigan • Defendant: Harmelin • After reevaluating the case, the Supreme Court found in favor of Michigan 5 votes to 4

7. Majority Decision Written by Justice Scalia • To address Harmelin’s complaint of his sentence being disproportionate to his crime, Scalia stated that the 8th amendment “did not contain a proportionality guarantee.” • Although the 8th amendment says that no cruel or unusual punishments may be inflicted, there is no guarantee that the sentences given will be proportionate to the level of the crime at issue. • It’s up to the judge which is why it cannot be protected. • Scalia elaborated more in saying the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause protected against unusual punishments, not cruel ones. • “while Harmelin’s life sentence may have been cruel, it was not constitutionally unusual or unprecedented.” Justice Scalia was joined by Justices Rehnquist, O’Connor, Kennedy, and Souter in his opinion, while the other justices formed the dissenting opinion.

8. Dissenting Opinion Written by Justice White • Joined by Justices Marshall, Blackmun, and Stevens. • Justice White used the three-prong test to evaluate some main points in his dissenting opinion. • As a result of the Supreme Court case Solem v. Helm 1983, a three-prong test was put into effect. Because this three-prong test analyzes different aspects, it evaluates if a sentence violates a certain amendment. The three-prong test analyzes “the harm caused, the sentence imposed on other criminal in the same jurisdiction, and the sentence imposed for the same crime in other jurisdictions.”

9. Dissenting Opinion Main Points • Harmelin was a first time offender • Life Without parole is the harshest penalty in Michigan • Death penalty is not issued there • In Alabama, the equivalence of Harmelin’s crime would be five years in prison • To get the life without parole sentence for a first time drug offender in Alabama one must • Possess ten kilograms or more of cocaine • Main points did not aid Harmelin in his mitigation

10. Political Impact • Astonished those who read the petitioner’s story • Federal drug law states that, “a first-time conviction for possessing that amount of an illegal drug could get no more than forty years in prison.” • Clearly, that would shock a nation. Even though Harmelin’s case shocked many, it did not bully Michigan into changing its laws. Michigan upheld their rulings made possible by certain judges.

11. Works Cited • "501 U.S. 957." Bulk.resource.org. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Nov. 2013. <https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/501/501.US.957.89-7272.html>. • Slide 5 • "Amendment 8." The Constitution of the United States: With Index, and the Declaration of Independence. [Malta]: National Center for Constitutional Studies, 2010. N. pag. Print. • Slide 4 • Denniston, Lyle. "High Court Upholds Life Term without Parole for First-time Drug Possession." BaltimoreSun.com. The Baltimore Sun, 28 June 1991. Web. 19 Nov. 2013. <http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1991-06-28/news/1991179025_1_chief-justice-cocaine-lawyer>.  • Slide 10 • HARMELIN v. MICHIGAN. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 16 November 2013. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1990/1990_89_7272>. • Slides 6 and 7 • "Harmelin v. Michigan." Google Scholar. Google, n.d. Web. 19 Nov. 2013. <http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12618142537190502279&q=harmelin+v+michigan&hl=en&as_sdt=6,47&as_vis=1#[10]>. • Slide 4, 8, and 9 • "People v. Harmelin, 440 NW 2d 75 - Mich: Court of Appeals 1989." Google Scholar. Google, n.d. Web. 18 Nov. 2013. <http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5533317725111644398&q=people+v.+harmelin&hl=en&as_sdt=6,47&as_ • Slides 2 and 3 • "Solem v. Helm." Casebriefs. Case Briefs, n.d. Web. 19 Nov. 2013. <http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/criminal-procedure/criminal-procedure-keyed-to-weinreb/sentence/solem-v-helm/>. • Slides 4 and 9

12. Pictures Works Cited • http://www.oakgov.com/courts/circuit/pages/maps/circuit-court.aspx • https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1536&bih=770&q=oakland+circuit+court&oq=oakland+circuit+&gs_l=img.3.0.0i24l10.454.4931.0.6536.23.20.0.3.3.1.257.2585.7j7j5.19.0....0...1ac.1.32.img..8.15.1211.RHU-MVwhc_w#hl=en&q=chemical+formula+for+cocaine&tbm=isch&facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=deSmyietRVOw0M%3A%3BMCAPMTZz_d_1vM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.clinicalpharmacology.com%252Fapps%252Fimages%252Fstructures%252F001%252Fcocaine.gif%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Ftotalpict.com%252Fchemical%252520formula%252520for%252520cocaine%3B298%3B121 • http://www.aim.org/don-irvine-blog/justice-scalia-canceled-subscription-to-slanted-shrilly-liberal-washington-post/ • http://www.endroe.org/dissentswhite.aspx