Judge Amy Coney Barrett has been on the Seventh Circuit Court since her 2017 appointment by President Trump and confirmation by the United States Senate. Judge Barrett stands poised to ascend to the Supreme Court of the United States by the end of October. While much of the public discussion regarding her judicial record and philosophy have surrounded moral and cultural matters, healthcare and election law, she will also be ruling on criminal cases. We’re going to take a look at 3 cases that may tell us how Justice Amy Coney Barrett might approach criminal law.
United States v. Watson
Police in a high-crime area of Gary, Indiana received an anonymous tip from a 14-year-old that “boys” were playing with “guns and stuff.” Police used this tip as the basis for stopping a car and finding 2 illegal guns. The defense argued that it was an illegal search. The basis for their argument is that the tip was too vague to constitute the reasonable cause required for police officers to do a frisk.
The 3-judge panel came down unanimously on the side of the defense and Barrett wrote the opinion that said reasonable cause was not present and thereby, the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights against illegal search and seizure were violated.
United States v. Moody
Dandre Moody was part of a crew that stole 100 guns. Moody got 13 of the guns for his role in the robbery and sold them over the phone to anonymous buyers. When he was caught and convicted for the robbery, the judge then added to the sentence because, in the judge’s view, Moody had reason to know that the people he was selling the guns to would use them to commit future crimes.
Once again, Barrett ruled in favor of the defendant and wrote the opinion for a unanimous panel. The reason for striking down the expanded sentence (though not the original sentence for the robbery itself) was that the judge had crossed a line between “permissible common sense inference and impermissible speculation.” Translation—the ruling said just because a judge might believe the gun buyers had criminal intent and be perfectly justified in thinking so, there had to be actual evidence to support that belief.
United States vs. Walker
A sex offender was convicted for failing to register. Barrett, again writing for a unanimous panel, threw out the conviction. The rationale dealt with subtle aspects of the law that had to decide whether a conviction fit “categorically” under the registration law they were being prosecuted for. Judge Barrett and her colleagues felt the answer to that question has no. This approach is termed “the categorical approach” and has implications in other areas of law.
What does it all mean?
Some might look at Barrett’s record and find sympathy for guns. Others might look at the same cases and find empathy for the rights of the accused and the need for law enforcement to follow proper procedures to get a conviction. Others might say she was simply following the particular law in question wherever it went.
Perhaps the biggest takeaway, though, is that in a confirmation vote that will be highly partisan, the criminal law record of Amy Coney Barrett might not be subject to easy political classification.