In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court delivered a blow to Marcus DeAngelo Jones, a man convicted on gun charges, by denying his appeal for a new trial. The court’s conservative majority, in a 6-3 decision, sided against Jones, who had been sentenced to 27 years in prison for violating a federal law aimed at preventing individuals with prior criminal convictions from possessing firearms.
Jones had argued that his conviction should be reconsidered following a 2019 Supreme Court decision that placed the burden on prosecutors to prove that defendants charged with violating federal gun laws were aware of their ineligibility to possess a weapon.
However, Jones’ attempt to reopen his case was rejected by a federal appeals court. It is important to note that the legal issue at hand pertains to procedural matters regarding when defendants can raise claims in court, rather than the specific facts of Jones’ case.
Writing for the majority, Justice Clarence Thomas emphasized that individuals who have exhausted their appeals do not have the opportunity for another day in court solely based on a more favorable interpretation of the law adopted after their conviction became final. According to Thomas, only two circumstances—newly discovered evidence or the court’s new interpretation of a constitutional provision—allow for a second chance under the 1996 federal law, known as AEDPA, which limits federal appeals.
The dissenting liberal justices expressed their concerns, arguing that the Supreme Court’s decision could lead to “bizarre outcomes” and “disturbing results.”
The ruling highlights the complexities surrounding appeals and the limited avenues for defendants to seek reconsideration of their convictions in light of evolving legal interpretations. With this decision, Marcus DeAngelo Jones remains subject to his lengthy prison sentence