Criminal law Antonin Scalia

scalia (right) @ harvard law school on november 30, 2006

scalia believed death penalty constitutional. dissented in decisions hold death penalty unconstitutional applied groups, such under age of 18 @ time of offense. in thompson v. oklahoma (1988), dissented court s ruling death penalty not applied aged 15 @ time of offense, , following year authored court s opinion in stanford v. kentucky, sustaining death penalty killed @ age 16. however, in 2005, court overturned stanford in roper v. simmons, , scalia again dissented, mocking majority s claims national consensus had emerged against execution of killed while underage, noting less half of states permitted death penalty prohibited underage killers. castigated majority including in count states had abolished death penalty entirely, stating doing rather including old-order amishmen in consumer-preference poll on electric car. of course don t it, sheds no light whatever on point @ issue . in 2002, in atkins v. virginia, court ruled death penalty unconstitutional applied mentally retarded. scalia dissented, stating not have been considered cruel or unusual execute mildly mentally retarded @ time of 1791 adoption of bill of rights , court had failed show national consensus had formed against practice.

scalia disfavored court s ruling in miranda v. arizona, held confession arrested suspect had not been advised of rights inadmissible in court, , voted overrule miranda in 2000 case of dickerson v. united states in minority of 2 justice clarence thomas. calling miranda decision milestone of judicial overreaching , scalia stated court should not fear correct mistakes.

although, in many areas, scalia s approach unfavorable criminal defendants, took side of defendants in matters involving confrontation clause of sixth amendment, guarantees defendants right confront accusers. in multiple cases, scalia wrote against laws allowed alleged victims of child abuse testify behind screens or closed-circuit television. in 2009 case, scalia wrote majority opinion in melendez-diaz v. massachusetts, holding defendants must have opportunity confront lab technicians in drug cases , certificate of analysis not enough prove substance drug.

scalia maintained every element of offense helps determine sentence must either admitted defendant or found jury under sixth amendment s jury guarantee. in 2000 case of apprendi v. new jersey, scalia wrote court s majority opinion struck down state statute allowed trial judge increase sentence if judge found offense hate crime. scalia found procedure impermissible because whether hate crime had not been decided jury. in 2004, wrote court in blakely v. washington, striking down washington state s sentencing guidelines on similar grounds. dissenters in blakely foresaw scalia use case attack federal sentencing guidelines (which had failed strike down in mistretta), , proved correct, scalia led five-member majority in united states v. booker, made guidelines no longer mandatory federal judges follow (they remained advisory).

in 2001 case of kyllo v. united states, scalia wrote court s opinion in 5–4 decision cut across ideological lines. decision found thermal imaging of home unreasonable search under fourth amendment. court struck down conviction marijuana manufacture based on search warrant issued after such scans conducted, showed garage considerably hotter rest of house because of indoor growing lights. applying fourth amendment prohibition on unreasonable search , seizure arrest, scalia dissented court s 1991 decision in county of riverside v. mclaughlin, allowing 48-hour delay before person arrested without warrant taken before magistrate, on ground @ time of adoption of fourth amendment, arrested person taken before magistrate practicable. in 1990 first amendment case, r.a.v. v. st. paul, scalia wrote court s opinion striking down st. paul, minnesota, hate speech ordinance in prosecution burning cross. scalia noted, let there no mistake our belief burning cross in s front yard reprehensible. st. paul has sufficient means @ disposal prevent such behavior without adding first amendment fire .