Criminal Law Steven Griffiths CJA354 David Harrison 9/24/2012
Reynolds vs. U.S. Criminal Law 2
The United States Supreme Court sees hundreds of cases a year, ranging from Medicare charges, to changing the way businesses should be operating. The case I chose to review today is the case of Reynolds vs. the U.S. According to Reuters.com: In 2001, Billy Joe Reynolds pleaded guilty to sodomy, and registered as a sex offender in Missouri. Reynolds failed to register in Pennsylvania when he traveled there in 2007, and was charged with a federal violation of SORNA. Reynolds, who pleaded guilty in Pennsylvania district court, now claims the rule was improperly instituted. The 3rd Circuit rejected his appeal This is an interesting case because on average there are 50 registered sex offenders in a 9 mile radius of where you live, here in Idaho that number is closer to 100. But with the case of Mr. Reynolds, he stated that the original law created to make individuals who are branded as a sex offender during the sentencing part of their trial register with the city and state that they live in as a way to track and let the community know where they live, and the extent of their crime. What is SORNA? And what does SORNA do for us? SORNA refers to the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act which is Title I of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-248). SORNA provides a comprehensive set of minimum standards for sex offender registration and notification in the United States. SORNA aims to close potential gaps and loopholes that existed under prior law and generally strengthens the nationwide network of sex offender registration and notification programs. (SORNA 2012). In this case, accomplice liability does not come into play as the case in general only refers to the individual who failed to register as a sex offender because he felt that that when SORNA was enacted it was not inputted properly enough to explain if he needed to register as a sex offender. However on the subject of criminal liability and SORNA there are three elements that must be addressed in order to prove criminal liability: 1. You must have a prior conviction of a sex offense, 2. If you have done any interstate traveling without notification of doing so, and 3. The failure on yourself to register as a sex offender whenever you move from one residence to another. So, for criminal liability as a sex offender to take place, one or more of the conditions has to be met, as well as be able to be proven that the individual did so knowing full well that it is against the terms and conditions of being a sex offender. In terms of Reynolds vs. U.S. actus reus, mens rea, and concurrence all apply, because Mr. Reynolds knew full well Criminal Law 3
that he had to register as a sex offender (actus rea), and by not doing so (mens rea) he knew he would be in violation of his individual terms and conditions of being released as a sex offender. So in accordance with the other two elements, concurrence can be proved, and in fact, was proven in front of the supreme court, but was later appealed by the 3 rd Circuit Court of Appeals, and overturned almost 11 years after the case was first heard, and submitted for an appeal. References The Supreme Court: Case by Case 2011-12. (2012). Retrieved from http://www.reuters.com/supreme-court/2011- 2012 SORNA. (2012). Retrieved from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/smart/sorna.htm