Brett Stuff
Judging the Judges
Term Year: 2018

Jamar Alonzo Quarles, Petitioner v. United States

Summary Analysis

DATE: 2019-06-10
DOCKET: 17-778
NAME: Jamar Alonzo Quarles, Petitioner v. United States

   AUTHOR: Kavanaugh
   JOINING: Roberts, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch
   GOOD: Yes

OPINION: Concurring
   AUTHOR: Thomas
   JOINING: None
   GOOD: No

Case Commentary

Per my reading (un-nuanced as it is), Thomas' Opinion contains (and/or is formed around) a major internal inconsistency.
The categorical approach relies on a comparison of the crime of conviction and judicially created ideal of burglary. But the ideal is starkly different from the reality of petitioner's actual crime: Petitioner attempted to climb through an apartment window to attack his ex-girlfriend.

Moreover, any reasonable jury reviewing the record here would have concluded that petitioner was convicted of burglary, so any error was harmless.

Let me just say, it ain't over until I say it is over... and/or until such a time as a reasonable jury agrees.

But then, I have no truck with The Categorical Approach. I think Sentence Enhancers (plus fifteen years, in the case at hand, for being a felon in possession of a firearm) are unfair. But then, given the enhancement, The Categorical Approach is a workable way of determining such enhancements.

Mens Rea: A Mind that has the quality of Guilt... or if you like, Guilty Mind.

Actus Reus: An Act that has the quality of Guilt... or if you like, Guilty Act.

Judging the Judges

Next Entry


How does one reconcile Thou Shall Not Kill will taking another's life on a piecemeal basis?

© copyright 2019 Brett Paufler
A Personal Opinion/Editorial