Gallardo leaves Missouri’s statutory and regulatory scheme in Medicaid reimbursement vulnerable and subject to change. While Missouri currently explicitly limits the recovery of Medicaid to past medical expenses, lawmakers with similar ideologies to the majority may read the Court’s ruling as a signal to propose new legislation in allowing the State to recover more losses than its due.
Continue readingCapital Punishment for Inaction of Ineffective Post-Conviction Counsel: How Sixth Amendment Protections Could be a Matter of Life or Death
The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that in all criminal prosecutions the accused enjoys a number of rights, including the right to have the assistance of counsel. The right to counsel is vital to protect other fundamental rights during the criminal justice process such as the fundamental right to a fair trial. In Shinn v. Ramirez, the United States Supreme Court evaluated whether federal courts could hold evidentiary hearings to develop the record because state post-conviction counsel was ineffective and failed to properly develop a record.
Continue readingThe Validity of Anti-Waiver Provisions in Arbitration Agreements in Missouri Post-Morgan v. Sundance, Inc.
In Morgan, the party seeking to compel arbitration initially defended the lawsuit as if there was no arbitration agreement. Almost eight months after the lawsuit was filed, the party moved to compel arbitration under the FAA. The Court of Appeals found that the nonmoving party would not be prejudiced by arbitrating the case and sent the case to arbitration. On appeal, the Supreme Court found that by requiring a showing of prejudice, the Court of Appeals created an arbitration-specific rule, which was contrary to the FAA.
Continue readingMiranda Warnings During Standoffs and the Public Safety Exception
What should have been a normal suppression motion has turned into a holding that has broad implications for defendants during crisis negotiations. The Court in Reuter listed certain factors to analyze in standoff-specific situations that are different from normal Miranda factors. In doing so, the Court nitpicks certain factors to analyze while ignoring others. Moreover, the Court missed an opportunity to apply the public safety exception created in Quarles.
Continue readingConfronting Reality: How Virtual Testimony is Not Inconsistent with the Confrontation Clause
There is no dispute that a criminal trial with every member of the trial present including the judge, defendant, attorneys, and witnesses best serves the interests of fairness and justice. However, what should a trial judge do when a witness is sick or at higher risk of contracting a severe case of COVID-19 and cannot testify in court? Can the Confrontation Clause and the defendant’s rights be satisfied in ways other than having the witness appear in trial in front of the defendant?
Continue readingMississippi’s Drinking Problem: How Interstate Negotiation Can Solve Groundwater Wars
With climate change sweeping the nation and droughts in the American West, groundwater wars will likely become more common. Groundwater litigation has involved claims from tortious takings, to commerce clause violations, to equitable apportionment. And, states have some choice on how to handle these groundwater wars: litigate or enter into an interstate water compact.
Continue readingBale-ing from a Common Sense Reading: Warrants and the Particularity Requirement
The warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment, along with its sister requirement in the Missouri Constitution, is a vital component of our Bill of Rights. It protects against unreasonable government intrusion into the private lives of citizens. Requiring a warrant to describe with particularity the things to be searched and seized further ensures against unreasonable intrusion. But a recent Missouri case has shaken up the details of the Missouri warrant requirement.
Continue readingThe Court Takes the Bite Out of the Exhaustion Requirement of the PLRA
The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) was enacted in 1996 primarily to reduce prisoner litigation. The passage of the PLRA led to a decrease in the number of cases filed in federal court by prisoners. However, there is also evidence that suggests that even meritorious claims are barred from federal court based on technicalities through a failure to comply with the PLRA. While the initial intent of the PLRA was to prohibit the increasing flow of frivolous suits by prisoners at the time, the consequences have been dire for prisoners seeking redress for meritorious claims that fail to meet the PLRA’s high standard of exhaustion.
Continue readingAppropriation or Adult Adjudication: Missouri Legislature’s Big Misstep in Passing “Raise the Age” Law
In 2018, the Missouri General Assembly enacted a law to “Raise the Age” for automatically trying certain juveniles as adults within the criminal system. For T.J., a seventeen-year-old in Missouri, and for many juvenile service providers, this law was the subject of confusion due to an ambiguity within the law regarding the effective date. The Supreme Court of Missouri had to resolve this dispute to clarify which law was applicable to T.J. and when the jurisdiction of the juvenile division was actually broadened.
Continue readingProtecting A Constitutional Right in the Face of a Public Health Crisis
The COVID-19 pandemic forced courts to adopt procedures in light of the public health crisis. In large part, this meant extremely limiting in-person proceedings and utilizing video conferencing software. However, the pandemic did not allow the suspension or restriction of an individual’s constitutional rights in criminal cases.
Continue reading