For the Defense - Volume 2, Issue 3 - 2017 - 52

plea negotiations require heightened Due Process protections.
Held: The Court's decision on this issue was
very thorough and provides significant guidance
on assessing forfeiture cases, with a favorable
result flowing from it. Anyone assessing a forfeiture issue must review this case in its entirety. In short, the Court stated that "...an analysis
of whether a civil in rem forfeiture violates the
Eighth Amendment requires a threshold inquiry
into whether the specific property sought to be
forfeited is an instrumentality of the underlying
offense." If it is not, the inquiry is concluded and
any forfeiture of the property would violate the
Eight Amendment. The Court identified several
factors that should be considered to make the
"instrumentality determination." If the property is an "instrumentality of the offense "...the
inquiry continues to an examination of proportionality" and an "...assessment of whether the
value of the property sought to be forfeited
is grossly disproportional to the gravity of
the underlying offense." The Court opined that,
'[i]f it is grossly disproportional, the forfeiture
is unconstitutional." With respect to the proportionality analysis, the Court, again, provided
several factors to be assessed in considering the
value of the property and in gauging the gravity
of the offense.
Finally, as to the innocent owner defense, the
Court held that "...the trial court must faithfully
identify the circumstances that make it reasonable to infer that the property owner had actual
knowledge of the illegal use of the property or
consented to the underlying criminal activity..."
and the "the trial court must consider all of the
circumstances before rejecting an innocent owner defense."
Amicus Authors: Ellen C. Brotman, of Brotman Law, and Elayne C. Bryn of Law Office of
Elayne C. Bryn.

Commw. v. Batts:
Decided: June 26, 2017
Nature of the case (Juvenile lifer case): Batts
was convicted of first degree murder for a murder that he committed when he was fourteen
years old. Batts challenged the constitutionality
of imposing a life-without-parole sentence, citing

For The Defense | Vol. 2, Issue 3

Roper v. Simmons. The Superior Court affirmed,
and the Supreme Court granted Batts' petition
for allowance of appeal. While that appeal was
pending, the United States Supreme Court decided Miller v. Alabama. The Pennsylvania Supreme
Court ultimately held that juveniles convicted of
first-degree murder prior to Miller could, after the
sentencing court's evaluation of the criteria identified in Miller, be subjected to a sentence of life in
prison without the possibility of parole. Batts was
ultimately re-sentenced to life without the possibility of parole.
Issue: "...whether the sentencing court imposed an illegal sentence when it resentenced him
to life in prison without the possibility of parole."
Amicus Argument: PACDL argued, among other things, that the only authorized sentence for
first degree murder committed by a juvenile in
2006 (to wit: life without the possibility of parole)
is unconstitutional, and that defect cannot be
remedied. PACDL noted that, although the legislature, post Miller, amended the sentencing scheme
for juveniles convicted of first degree murder to
try to address Miller, that amendatory statute was
to be applied prospectively. Additionally, the separation of powers doctrine precludes the Court
from re-writing the statute to provide a constitutionally appropriate sentencing scheme. PACDL argued that, as a result, Batts must be resentenced
for the included offense of Third Degree Murder.
Although the Supreme Court closely and carefully assessed this argument, the argument was ultimately rejected. The Court, however, ultimately
concluded that Batts was not sentenced in accordance with constitutional constraints.
Held: "After careful review, we conclude,
based on the findings made by the sentencing
court and the evidence upon which it relied, that
the sentence is illegal in light of Miller v. Alabama,
567 U.S. 460 (2012) (holding that a mandatory
sentence of life in prison without the possibility
of parole, imposed upon a juvenile without consideration of the defendant's age and the attendant characteristics of youth, is prohibited under the Eighth Amendment to the United States
Constitution), and Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136
S.Ct. 718 (2016) (holding that the Miller decision
announced a new substantive rule of constitutional law that applies retroactively and clarifying the
limited circumstances in which a life-without-pa-

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6291421178853922648&q=Commonwealth+v.+Batts&hl=en&as_sdt=6,39&as_vis=1 http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6291421178853922648&q=Commonwealth+v.+Batts&hl=en&as_sdt=6,39&as_vis=1 http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9236378392139374560&q=Commonwealth+v.+Batts&hl=en&as_sdt=6,39&as_vis=1 http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9236378392139374560&q=Commonwealth+v.+Batts&hl=en&as_sdt=6,39&as_vis=1

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of For the Defense - Volume 2, Issue 3 - 2017