U.S. Supreme Court dismisses 'D.C. Sniper' Malvo case after change in law




  • In US
  • 2020-02-26 17:27:30Z
  • By Reuters
U.S. Supreme Court dismisses
U.S. Supreme Court dismisses 'D.C. Sniper' Malvo case after change in law  

By Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday formally dismissed a case in which Lee Boyd Malvo, who was 17 when he took part in the deadly 2002 "D.C. Sniper" shooting spree in the Washington area, was challenging his life without parole sentence.

The move comes after a new law was passed in Virginia, where Malvo is incarcerated in a supermax state prison. The measure, signed into law on Monday, lets people sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for offenses committed before age 18 - as Malvo was - to seek release after 20 years.

Lawyers on both sides had asked the Supreme Court to dismiss the case. Malvo, now 35, also received a sentence of life in prison without parole in Maryland, which is not affected by the Virginia law.

Malvo and an older accomplice, John Allen Muhammad, were convicted in the shootings in which 10 people were killed. Muhammad was sentenced to death and executed in a Virginia state prison in 2009 at age 48.

Virginia had appealed after a lower court ruled that Malvo should be resentenced in light of Supreme Court precedent that mandatory life sentences without parole for juvenile offenders violate the U.S. Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. The Supreme Court on Oct. 16 heard arguments in the case.

The shootings occurred over three weeks in Washington, Maryland and Virginia, causing panic in the U.S. capital region.

Malvo received four life sentences in Virginia, where he was convicted of two murders and later entered a separate guilty plea to avoid the death penalty.


(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Will Dunham)

COMMENTS

More Related News

US supreme court gives conservatives the blues but what
US supreme court gives conservatives the blues but what's really going on?

Donald Trump's nomination of two justices seemed to have tilted the balance decisively but recent rulings have raised eyebrowsFor all the ominous twists of Donald Trump's presidency, his placement on the US supreme court of two deeply conservative justices, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, inspired a special kind of foreboding for many liberals.With three conservatives already sitting on the court, the creation by Trump of a seemingly impregnable, five-vote conservative supreme court majority appeared to pose a generational threat to essential American rights and freedoms.But as the first full term with the two Trump "supremes" draws to a close, a curious development has taken hold. Last...

Outrage as Indian judge calls alleged rape victim
Outrage as Indian judge calls alleged rape victim 'unbecoming'

Judge says behaviour of alleged victim was "not the way our women react when they are ravished".

US victims of FARC rebels win claim to Venezuelan
US victims of FARC rebels win claim to Venezuelan's fortune

Three American defense contractors held for five years by leftist rebels in Colombia moved closer to collecting on a $318 million judgment against their former captors when a U.S. Supreme Court justice rebuffed an appeal by a sanctioned Venezuelan businessman whose assets they seek to claim. Justice Clarence Thomas refused to hear an emergency appeal by Samark López, letting stand an order by a federal appeals court immediately turning over $53 million from the businessman's previously seized U.S. bank accounts., though the appeals court judgment is being contested.

U.S. Supreme Court blocks Alabama order easing voting restrictions
U.S. Supreme Court blocks Alabama order easing voting restrictions
  • US
  • 2020-07-03 02:51:23Z

Alabama requires voters to submit a photo identification when they apply for an absentee ballot, and it requires that ballot to be returned along with the signature of two witnesses or a notary. A U.S. district court judge in Birmingham, Alabama's largest city, issued a ruling in June that would have effectively freed voters from the photo I.D. requirement, in some counties, if they are 65 or older or have a disability. The judge also would have blocked Alabama from restricting counties that wished to establish curbside voting.

Supreme Court blocks curbside voting in Alabama
Supreme Court blocks curbside voting in Alabama
  • World
  • 2020-07-03 01:35:57Z

The U.S. Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision Thursday blocked a lower court ruling allowing curbside voting in Alabama and waiving some absentee ballot requirements during the COVID-19 pandemic. Conservative justices granted Alabama's request to stay a federal judge's order that would allow local officials to offer curbside voting in the July runoff and loosen absentee ballot requirements in three of the state's large counties. The order will remain stayed while the court decides whether to hear Alabama's appeal.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked with *

Cancel reply

Comments

Top News: US