Document: 455 U.S. 478 102 S.Ct. 1181 71 L.Ed.2d 353 James M. MURPHY, District Judge, Fourth Judicial of the State Nebraska, Douglas County, Appellant,v.Eugene L. HUNT. No. 80-2165. March 2, 1982. PER CURIAM. 1 Appellee Hunt was charged with first-degree sexual assault on a child and three counts forcible assault. He appeared these charges in Omaha Municipal Court where his request for bail denied.1 On May 23, 1980, review hearing held County Court. Relying Art. I, § 9, Nebraska Constitution, Judge Murphy, appellant here, denied Hunt's second application bail.2 That section Constitution provides relevant part: "All persons shall be bailable . except treason, offenses involving penetration by force or against will victim, murder, proof is evident presumption great." For purposes bail, counsel stipulated that, this case, "the [was] 2 June pending trial him, filed complaint under 42 U.S.C. 1983 (1976 ed., Supp.V) United States Nebraska. claimed that limiting cases offenses, violated federal constitutional rights to free from excessive cruel unusual punishment, due process equal protection laws, effective assistance Sixth, Eighth, Fourteenth Amendments. sought declaratory injunctive relief only. October 17, dismissed civil complaint. appealed Appeals Eighth Circuit. 3 Meanwhile, prosecutions had proceeded. September 10, 1980—even prior decision—and November 5, he found guilty two him. 13, sentenced consecutive terms 8-15 years prison offenses.3 8, again decision Court, convicted child. December 11, 12-15 charge. each convictions Supreme appeals remains before court. 4 1981, Circuit decided appeal dismissal claim. v. Roth, 648 F.2d 1148 (1981). The court reversed exclusion violent violates Excessive Bail Clause Amendment Constitution.4 Because we find claim pretrial became moot following state court, now vacate judgment Appeals. 5 In general case becomes " 'when issues presented are no longer "live" parties lack legally cognizable interest outcome.' Parole Comm'n Geraghty, 445 388, 396, 100 1202, 1208, 63 479 (1980), quoting Powell McCormack, 395 486, 496, 89 1944, 1950, 23 491 (1969). It would seem clear rule once convicted.5 question live because even favorable it not have entitled bail. same reason, result case. prayed damages nor represent class detainees. 6 We recognized an exception "capable repetition, yet evading review." Weinstein Bradford, 423 147, 149, 96 347, 348, 46 350 (1975) (per curiam ), said "in absence action, 'capable review' doctrine limited situation elements combined: (1) challenged action its duration too short fully litigated cessation expiration, (2) there reasonable expectation complaining party subjected again." See Illinois Elections Bd. Socialist Workers Party, 440 173, 187, 99 983, 991, 59 230 (1979); Sosna Iowa, 419 393, 95 553, 532 (1975). might overturn convictions, then demand trial, matter fell within review."6 reach different conclusion. 7 has never mere physical theoretical possibility sufficient satisfy test stated Weinstein. If were true, virtually any reviewable. Rather, must "reasonable expectation" "demonstrated probability" controversy recur party. supra, at S.Ct., 348. detect such level probability All know record been separate willing stipulate eligibility guilt great. Based facts, cannot say exists ever position. There reason expect all overturned appeal.7 willingness him "evident" does encourage us believe otherwise. 8 Nor Press Assn. Stuart, 427 539, 2791, 49 683 (1976), relied upon Appeals, contrary. constitutionality restrictive order, entered criminal expired jury impaneled, though order long since expired. between repetition" defendant's conviction appeal, requiring new possibly dispute Association as use orders likely future trials. combination elements, both which capable permitted conclude standard Weinstein.8 9 comparable set expectations position trial. 10 Accordingly, moot. Indeed, time decisions vacated, remanded instructions dismissed. 11 So ordered. 12 Justice WHITE dissenting. 13 states aside individuals rape great, "[a]ll bailable." awaiting Moreover, statute concerning "[n]othing herein prevent person giving supersedeas bond district affect right defendant admitted Court." Neb.Rev.Stat. 25-1912 (1979).1 Thus, provision allowed Murphy deny appellee also serves conviction. Both agree so.2 14 applies applications appeal. Instead considers factor irrelevant requested unconstitutional only applied Ante, 481-482, n. 5. 15 I am persuaded issue can so lightly plainly effectively bars during declared could seek fact courts taken waiver release. after useless formality. forbids releasing individual Since satisfied conviction, reasonably further current law futile. 16 independent barrier denying ability obtain whether detention therefore need ask trial.3 unavailability opportunity may constitute sufficiently maintain outcome litigation. 17 Court's analysis rest limitation Appeals' Even accepting reading opinion, point appears more than restatement related observation did not, suit filed, assert ruled broadly required. Nevertheless, consequences court's ruling extend create implied able categorically manner chosen. conversely, fortiori, release present circumstances.4 18 denial cause consider other reasons why remained alive. When entertained doubt about continuing nature controversy, lower consideration mootness. Vitek Jones, 436 407, 98 2276, 56 381 (1978); Scott Kentucky Board, 429 60, 97 342, 50 303 (1976); Indiana Employment Security Div. Burney, 409 540, 93 883, 35 62 (1973). A remand particularly where, mootness briefed 19 While couched justiciability, effect restrictions struck down given life; consequently, attempt pursuant Constitution. undeniable securing liberty, interests remain adverse those appellant, III well exist. prefer explore further. dissent. several nonsexual felonies one count nonforcible charges. holding neither Parker 202 Neb. 850, 278 N.W.2d 106 (1979). remaining charge 1980. "The protections involved grant fundamental foreclose arbitrary decree. "We hold, therefore, portion Article certain eighth amendment incorporated fourteenth amendment." F.2d, 1164-1165. made initiated convicted. "persons offenses." 4, supra (emphasis added). arguments similarly accused, but convicted, noncapital offense. distinct who tried Due Process apply differently situations. As often noted: "Embedded traditional rules governing adjudication principle whom constitutionally heard challenge ground conceivably unconstitutionally others, situations Broadrick Oklahoma, 413 601, 610, 2908, 2914, 37 830 Therefore, assuming raised should decide—not quite presumptively innocent respect short, save Arnold dissented conclusion advanced opinion. "What likelihood triple reversal be, way knowing, contains hint facts innocence. reversals wholly speculative. They come about, pardoned, hope, doubting it." 1166 (Arnold, J., dissenting). cited our support purported weaken U.S., 585, 2815, (BRENNAN, concurring judgment) ("It subject petitioners publicity ."). "same criteria applicable" trial; "separate law" former. Tr. Oral Arg. 21. 29-901 "if Mr. done provision." 22. addition, inherent power propriety without specific authorizing statute. Jensen, 203 441, 279 120 Probable jurisdiction having noted, being agreement moot, briefed. At oral argument, however, Schaaf, Assistant Attorney General Hornstein, representing Hunt, directly "Question: [A]fter anyone while appeal? "Mr. Schaaf: Yes. suppose Yes until decided? suggest [moot]." 19. Wouldn't basis Hornstein: that. Certainly. However factors sort out statute, independently bail? think mandates [A]nd pending, isn't it? No, mean, sides moot." Id., 40. convinced, correct finding conditions review" exception. suggests bases events repetition independent. ("The repetition' senses." 546, 2796.) language Gerstein Pugh, 420 103, 110-111, 854, 861-862, 43 54 (1975), claims type inherently when represented public defender: "Moreover, constant existence suffering deprivation certain. attorney named respondents defender, safely assume clients case." This language, silently disavows reached, read formalities certification unnecessary presence who, effect, represents detention. misinterprets significance point. Contrary account, ante, decide requesting deciding important appeal—a collateral consequence stake resolution nothing novel approach. See, e.g., Sibron New York, 392 40, 51, 88 1889, 1896, 20 917 (1968) ("mere prisoner mechanically merits [of conviction] Court"); Pennsylvania Mimms, 434 106, 108-109, 3, 330, 332-333, 331 (1977) ("possibility 'collateral legal consequences' sentence already served permits reviewed here merits"); (1969) (remaining back salary justified determining properly excluded membership House Representatives despite seated).

Category: 8