Muth v. Frank

Muth v. Frank

Muth v. Frank, 412 F.3d 808 (7th Cir. 2005),[1] was a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), striking down anti-homosexual sodomy laws as unconstitutional did not extend to the conclusion that laws against consensual adult incest were similarly unconstitutional. The case, docketed as #03-3984, was decided 22 June 2005.

Contents

Background

The case originated in the case of Allen Muth and his younger sister Patricia Teernstra Muth, who claimed to be but were never legally married and had four children (this can be considered a case of genetic sexual attraction, as the two had been separated three months after Patty was born during the entire rest of their childhood). Their second child, Tiffany, was developmentally disabled, but she was not genetically disabled. They worked as over-the-road truckers, and often left her with babysitters after the trucking company Allen worked for prevented them from having the child on the truck. When they were a month late in returning to pick up the child from Allen's legal wife (who was babysitting), Allen's wife called child services and claimed they had abandoned her in the house of a baby-sitter. The abandonment led to the state of Wisconsin successfully seeking to have a court terminate their parental rights in respect to the child, on grounds of their incestuous parenthood as well as the child's condition and evidence that they had neglected her. After obeying the child services regulations to get their child back (including undergoing couples counseling) while receiving simultaneous orders to separate from the criminal court division which eventually prosecuted them for felony incest under an obscure statute from the mid-18th century, their parental rights were terminated. An examination of the court transcripts and social services records shows that the deputy district attorney prosecuting the case, Nancy Ettenheim, was outraged that the Muths had conceived children from their incestuous union, and that the "evidence" of neglect was largely slanted toward convincing the Judge to terminate their parental rights under any circumstance. The Muths tried to appeal, claiming that the "termination of their parental rights based on their incestuous parenthood denied them due process of law and their rights to equal protection of the law". The court denied these claims.

This case arose when in a subsequent trial, both were convicted of incest and sentenced to prison (8 yrs for Allen and 5 yrs for Patricia Muth), and an attempted appeal on similar grounds failed again. Finally, Allen Muth applied while imprisoned for a writ of habeas corpus in federal court on the grounds that the state anti-incest laws violated his constitutional rights and hence his imprisonment was illegal.

Grounds of dismissal

The grounds for dismissal, that Lawrence had dealt specifically with homosexual sodomy and not other consensual private sexual activity between adults, were considered "narrow and strained" by at least one newspaper, The Boston Globe [1]. As legal scholar Matthew Franck observed, the writer of the opinion, Judge Daniel Manion, must have been "desperate to avoid the plain consequences of the [Supreme] Court's recent precedents on sexual liberty."

The court ruled that Lawrence v. Texas was:

"a new substantive rule and is thus retroactive ... If it would be unconstitutional to punish a person for an act that cannot be subject to criminal penalties it is no less unconstitutional to keep a person in prison for committing the same act [...] The ultimate question then is not whether Lawrence is retroactive, but, rather, whether Muth is a beneficiary of the rule Lawrence announced. He is not. Lawrence did not address the constitutionality of incest statutes. Rather, the statute at issue in Lawrence was one proscribing homosexual sodomy..."

However a closer reading of the decision indicates that this was not the only factor. Muth and his sister were convicted under State law, and were convicted before the Federal courts ruled in Lawrence v. Texas. There are only specific circumstances where a federal court may overturn a State decision, and the other legal issue considered was therefore if a federal court could intervene to overturn a State ruling, based on a matter that was a crime at the time of conviction:

"AEDPA instructs a federal court reviewing a state conviction on habeas review to determine whether the decision of the last state court to adjudicate the merits of the petitioner’s claim was reasonably correct as of the time the decision was made. As discussed below, only in limited circumstances are legal developments occurring after the state court’s decision considered. Lawrence was decided after Muth’s conviction and the exhaustion of his state post-conviction remedies. Muth has not identified, and we have not found, a federal court decision (and certainly not a Supreme Court decision) prior to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals decision in Muth I that even discussed whether criminal penalties for incest might be unconstitutional."

References

  1. ^ Text of the court decision (PDF)

External links


Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

Игры ⚽ Нужно решить контрольную?

Look at other dictionaries:

  • Frank Muth — (* 1959 in Würzburg) ist ein deutscher Schauspieler und Synchronsprecher. Er arbeitet auch als Synchronautor und Regisseur. Leben Seine Ausbildung erhielt er an der renommierten Otto Falckenberg Schule in München. Schon während seines Studiums… …   Deutsch Wikipedia

  • Lawrence v. Texas — SCOTUSCase Litigants=Lawrence v. Texas ArgueDate=March 26 ArgueYear=2003 DecideDate=June 26 DecideYear=2003 FullName=John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Garner v. Texas Docket=02 102 Citation=123 S. Ct. 2472; 156 L. Ed. 2d 508; 2003 U.S. LEXIS 5013;… …   Wikipedia

  • List of United States courts of appeals cases — Every year, each of the eleven United States courts of appeals decides hundreds of cases. Of those, a few are so important that they later become models for decisions of other circuits, and of the United States Supreme Court, while others are… …   Wikipedia

  • Zoosexuality and the law — looks at the laws governing human animal sexual interaction (also sometimes known as bestiality or zoophilia) around the world.Because it is easy to determine when there is a law against, but (for reasons discussed) often less easy to reliably… …   Wikipedia

  • Liste der Biografien/Mun–Muz — Biografien: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q …   Deutsch Wikipedia

  • US-amerikanische Kinder- und Jugendliteratur — Amerikanische Schulkinder wählen in der kleinen Bibliothek ihrer Grundschule Bücher aus (1938)[1] Die amerikanische Kinder und Jugendliteratur umfasst alle literarischen Arbeiten, die für ein Publikum von Kindern und Jugendlichen geschaffen,… …   Deutsch Wikipedia

  • Frankreich [3] — Frankreich (Gesch.). I. Vom Anfang der geschichtlichen Zeit bis zum Ende der römischen Herrschaft, 486 v. Chr. Die ersten Bewohner des heutigen F s waren Celten (s.d.), von den Römern Gallier genannt; nur einzelne Theile des Landes wurden zu der… …   Pierer's Universal-Lexikon

  • List of Law & Order characters — This is a list of main, notable, and recurring characters appearing in the American television police procedural and legal drama Law Order and its spin offs , , and . Characters in bold print are active for the current 2007 08 season. Main… …   Wikipedia

  • Transformers: Generation 2 — Seriendaten Deutscher Titel Transformers Originaltitel Transformers: Generation 2 …   Deutsch Wikipedia

  • Amerikanische Kinder- und Jugendliteratur — Amerikanische Schulkinder wählen in der kleinen Bibliothek ihrer Grundschule Bücher aus (1938)[1] Die amerikanische Kinder und Jugendliteratur umfasst alle literarischen Arbeiten, die für ein Publikum von Kindern und Jugendlichen geschaffen,… …   Deutsch Wikipedia

Share the article and excerpts

Direct link
Do a right-click on the link above
and select “Copy Link”