Ketanji Brown Jackson Stands Firm—and Alone—on Compassionate Release
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that the inaccuracy of a conviction does not qualify as an 'extraordinary and compelling reason' for compassionate release. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, arguing that actual innocence should be considered in such cases. The ruling emphasizes the challenges faced by wrongfully convicted individuals seeking relief through federal habeas corpus.
- ▪The Supreme Court's decision in Fernandez v. United States limits the grounds for compassionate release.
- ▪Joe Fernandez, convicted based on weak evidence, sought compassionate release after being denied habeas corpus relief.
- ▪Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's dissent highlighted the need to consider actual innocence in compassionate release cases.
Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand
Jurisprudence Ketanji Brown Jackson Stands Firm—and Alone—on Compassionate Release By Belén Lowrey-Kinberg and Elizabeth Webster May 29, 20262:46 PM Photo illustration by Slate. Photos by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images and supremecourt.gov Copy Link Share Share Comment Copy Link Share Share Comment Does the inaccuracy or unfairness of an underlying conviction count as an “extraordinary and compelling reason” for compassionate release? The U.S. Supreme Court considered this question in Thursday’s ruling in Fernandez v. United States and decided 8–1 that it does not. This case is unusual because innocent prisoners typically petition for federal habeas corpus relief, not compassionate release.
…
Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at Slate.
Discussion
0 commentsMore from Slate
