Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Cheeks

Supreme Court of Kansas

Decided October 4, 2013No. 104,858Published

1Dissent

Rosen, J,

dissenting: While I am sympathetic to the interests of all wrongfully convicted prisoners in taking advantage of improvements in forensic science to help demonstrate their innocence, three considerations lead me to dissent.

First, principles of constitutional analysis generally support the constitutionality of the statute as drafted. As the majority correctly points out, we must presume that a statute is constitutional and we must resolve all doubts in favor of upholding the legislation. As the majority also correctly notes, the appellant in this case does not belong to a suspect…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Ross v. MoffittSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  2. District Attorney's Office for the Third Judicial District v. OsborneSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
  3. United States v. MacCollomSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  4. Cunningham v. District Attorney's Office for Escambia CountyCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2010
  5. People v. PursleyAppellate Court of Illinois · 2003

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API