Reply To: AWA Loses in Pennsylvania’s Highest Court

terry brunson

@ Mark

If win the lower court round – the PAG will appeal – – – –
If I loose I will appeal – – – – – – – – –

The PSP thinking that ACT 10 is going to stand. It has not stood in Michigan. That state has an ACT 10 after they loose the Cert at the SCOTUS. They came up with an ACT 10.

The case that brought them down was Cook – Cook’s lawyer used a SCOTUS case called WEAVER v. GRAHAM, (1981)

In the WEAVER v. GRAHAM, (1981) case it was Ex Post Facto because the date of the offense was before the enactment of ACT 10 in Michigan.

Michigan’s AG tried to bring in Smith v. Doe but the Michigan Supreme Court would not hear it because Smith v. Doe is an Alaska case that says sex offender laws are civil-

What kicks it out is the Kenny Mendoza test that says the Sct court is the floor not the ceiling in test on Ex Post Facto rules. The Highest court in the state can add test to the constitutionality of a sex offender law.

In PA it is going to come down to the PASC asking the commonwealth if the Civil form of ACT 10 match its effect in punishment when violated?

Meaning – is the effect jail?

If it is the civil form of a law has to have civil effect like (money fine) not jail. Jail is for criminal effects of a law.

The Commonwealth think that it is in the right to say that ACT 10 is civil – not criminal when ACT 10’s results in criminal effect of incarceration for such minor infractions. that is substantively unfair in law practice.