Facts: Mr.
Reynolds served prison time for a sex offense in Missouri from 2001. After
Missouri released him, he moved to Pennsylvania. The Government claimed he did
not give notice to Missouri of his change in residence, a violation of federal
statute. Subsequent to his conviction, Congress passed its latest version of
the sex offender registration statute. Never one to miss a chance at being
petty, the government indicted Mr. Reynolds for not telling Missouri where he
moved.
Issue: Whether the latest version of the federal sex
offender registration statute applied people convicted prior to the statute’s
enactment?
Held: No.
Reasoning:
The Court reasoned that the Act
does not apply to anyone convicted prior to its enactment until the Attorney
General so specifies. At the time, the Attorney General had yet to specify the
statute applied to folks like Mr. Reynolds.
Link to Reynolds v. United States here
Link to Reynolds v. United States here
I am a layman without any educational or legal background. However, I find it particularly interesting to see how our federal, state and local governments court system, legislators and law enforcement keeps everyone in a state of confusion regarding the Adam Walsh Act/SORNA etc.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that our Constitution ex post facto amendment is primarily against it's original intent.
I am embarrassed and ashamed of our legal system from our Supreme Court justices down to county law enforcement.
There has to be a more responsible, mature and intelligent way to create laws that not only serve the justice system but the accused as well.
Well said manwithaplan!
Delete