An Update on Our Biggest Stories of 2021

Shelby County (Memphis), Tennessee, historically set cash bail in criminal cases without stopping to ask whether people would be able to bail out. This practice unnecessarily detained people who could not afford to pay for release, but who would otherwise return to court and live peacefully in their communities. The ACLU Criminal Law Reform Project negotiated a historic settlement with Shelby County to end this practice. In retaliation, the Tennessee legislature passed HB 1719, which prohibits judges from considering an arrestee’s ability to pay when setting bail. This law is unprecedented. Our lawsuit seeks to enjoin Shelby County officials from enforcing it.

This case asks whether Georgia’s insanity defense statutes can be construed to contain an exception for cases where defendants allegedly triggered their own insanity by discontinuing their medication weeks before the alleged crimes. The State argues for such an exception, even though the text of the insanity defense statutes expressly pins the availability of the defenses to the defendant’s mental condition “at the time of” the alleged crimes. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, along with the ACLU of Georgia, filed an amicus brief arguing that even if the State’s interpretation of the statutory text were reasonable, its argument should still be rejected because it contradicts the rule of lenity. The rule of lenity is a well-established canon of statutory construction requiring that, if a criminal statute can reasonably be interpreted in different ways, courts must adopt the interpretation most favorable to the accused.

This case asks whether the state can arrest, charge, and convict someone under Montana’s obstruction statute for exercising their federal and state constitutional right to record police officers in public spaces. The defendant was filming a traffic stop when police instructed him to move farther away. When he did not move as far as they wanted, they arrested him for obstructing a peace officer. The ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative, along with the ACLU of Montana, filed an amicus brief in support of the defendant arguing that the officer’s refusal to allow the defendant to peacefully record police activity from a public sidewalk was, in effect, a content-based restriction on speech that could not be justified under strict scrutiny. Even if the restriction was not content-based, our brief argues that it is not a reasonable time place or manner restriction.

ANNAPOLIS, Md. – The Maryland Supreme Court issued a ruling this week in the case Moira Akers v. State, overturning Moira Akers’ conviction on the grounds of inadmissible evidence. Moira suffered a traumatic stillbirth only to be charged with murder and sentenced to 30 years in prison. Despite the fact that abortion is legal in Maryland, prosecutors used her internet search history, in which she researched pregnancy termination options, and lack of prenatal care as evidence that she intended to commit a crime. By effectively criminalizing Moira’s ability to even contemplate an abortion, prosecutors undermined state law guaranteeing her right to make her own reproductive decisions. The court found that this improperly admitted evidence was irrelevant as a matter of law because Moira’s consideration of abortion and lack of prenatal care bore no logical connection to whether she would cause harm to a person. Accordingly, the court reversed Moira’s convictions. Statement from David Rocah, senior staff attorney, ACLU of Maryland: “The Maryland Supreme Court’s ruling overturning this wrongful conviction and striking evidence of Moira’s attempt to inform herself about her options during her pregnancy is a victory for both Moira Akers and the people of Maryland, who affirmed the state constitutional right to an abortion at the ballot box just last year. This ruling should serve as a cautionary tale that even states that safeguard abortion are not immune to unjust prosecutorial threats.” Statement from Lauren Johnson, director of the Abortion Criminal Defense Initiative at the American Civil Liberties Union: “We’re glad the court set this important precedent for abortion rights in Maryland and reversed Moira’s conviction. It was the right decision, though Moira should have never been put in this position by the state. This ruling should serve as a reminder that even states that have safeguarded abortion are not immune to unjust prosecutorial threats. It’s crucial that we stay vigilant. We must continue to fight back against the harm that the state inflicts against pregnant people. The ACLU remains committed to fighting for reproductive freedom across our country.”