You are on page 1of 3

Criminal Law 1

RUNNING HEAD: CRIMINAL LAW











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

You might also like