Procedural side. Have any states treated miller as retroactive on state habeas . Yes. The majority of states its a close call. I think its maybe 10 to 7 or 10 to 8, but the majority of states that have reviewed this have concluded that miller is retroactive. Most have done it as a matter of substantive law. There are a couple of opinions that talk about the watershed exception which is not the way we think this case should be analyzed. Not only the states have done that, but the United States has taken that position with respect to the juveniles that were sentenced before miller to life without parole as a mandatory sentence, and in the resentencings of those that have taken place so far its only been about ten, but those defendants have almost uniformly received sentences that are terms of years significantly shorter than life. What is the population were dealing with if most states do apply miller retroactively . I think there was a figure of 2,000 people with life without parole. I
Off to the side, trying to pretend they are not happening, that is a career ending proposition for them. That is the first thing. The second thing is making the Justice System work in Holding People accountable so that their we should stop pleabargaining. We should stop lowering charges. If some of the evidence is clear and there is a conviction we should be drumming these offenders out of the service with dishonorable discharges as publicly as we possibly can. Should be making examples of them. One of the things that appears to be true although the data is a little bit squishy, back in the time of iraq when we had the surge and we had the army had to grow the force very quickly. And they were keeping people in a place, not stoploss, they were extending and pulling out all the stops. Part of what happened during that time was the army in particular granted an unprecedented number of waivers for people who had criminal convictions, Domestic Violence convictions, rape convictions. Some o
,atters of the constitution and the federal hay be as statute only applies in federal court. The federal habeas corpus can grant if relief is warranted. Says pleasee acknowledge we are holding a prisoner in contradiction of federal law that used to do nothing about it, then the answer is federal habeas corpus . Theres not a second answer the state can be required under the supremacy clause under its own procedures to enforce the federal law . If i were to take that position, im not sure what would support me. Martinez versus ryan suggested there are advantages to citing the federal hay be us statute the hay be a rather than what the court called a freestanding constitutional plan. A major advantage here is if you say the state courts are bound by the constitution, when it would go to federal hay be us, there would be a very efrin shall review. If you say the redress question in state court is a matter of when the issue goes to federal hay be us, it would not apply because the state cou