I am only getting back into the swing of things now after getting reaquainted with my family and getting the practice back up to speed after my deployment. As part of that process I am trolling through old posts of blogs I like to see what has been written over the past several months.
VIA Sex Crimes:
From Appellate Law & Practice:
. . .
Also, a “1989 conviction for indecent assault and battery on a child under fourteen” as a violent felony for purposes of the ACCA. The First provides a useful analysis for determining whether a state law crime is violent. We know where this is going. The First looks at its other precedent and concludes that “inappropriate sexual touching [by adults against children] is a crime that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another” and is therefore violent.” The First parses though the state statutes, and concludes that the likelihood that the defendant was convicted of a “Romeo-Juliet” offense is quite low. Why? “We have scoured the caselaw and could not discover a single reported case in which a juvenile was convicted under Section 13B for consensual sexual activity with a similarly-aged youth.” Okay, that part is crap. Just because there isn’t a reported case doesn’t mean that people have not plead guilty. They could have done a lot better than just looking on Westlaw. But, since they decided they wanted to send this guy to jail, they did not bother to take the issue seriously. Whatever the case, they First does make a good point that the liklihood of this being a Romeo-Julliet conviction is low, and then says “If and when a person is convicted under section 13B for consensual sexual contact with a youth of the same or similar age, and sentencing enhancement based on that conviction is sought, we reserve the right to revisit the issue” (Can courts “reserve” rights? What does that even mean?)