Benjamin Butler
by Barbara L. Jones
|
Born: Oct. 1, 1975; Chicago
Education: University of Minnesota Law School, J.D., 2001; University of Minnesota, B.A., 1998
Employment: Public Defender’s Appellate Office, assistant state public defender, 2002-present; Minnesota 4th Judicial District, law clerk to Judge John J. Sommerville, 2001-02
Professional Associations: American Bar Association, Minnesota State Bar Association, Minnesota Women Lawyers
Hobbies/Interests: Chicago Cubs, discovering new music, Minnesota Twins, mystery novels
Personal: Wife, Katherine; one daughter
Public Defender’s Appellate Office
Education: University of Minnesota Law School, J.D., 2001; University of Minnesota, B.A., 1998
Employment: Public Defender’s Appellate Office, assistant state public defender, 2002-present; Minnesota 4th Judicial District, law clerk to Judge John J. Sommerville, 2001-02
Professional Associations: American Bar Association, Minnesota State Bar Association, Minnesota Women Lawyers
Hobbies/Interests: Chicago Cubs, discovering new music, Minnesota Twins, mystery novels
Personal: Wife, Katherine; one daughter
Benjamin Butler, an assistant state public defender, was at the epicenter of a landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling earlier this year that dealt with major issues of federalism and criminal defendants’ rights.
Butler, along with co-counsel Roy Spurbeck, persuaded the court in Danforth v. Minnesota that it is constitutional for state courts to retroactively apply to defendants newly articulated federal constitutional protections, even if the high court has also found that retroactivity isn’t mandated by the U.S. Constitution.
In a 7-2 opinion, the Supreme Court concluded that federal caselaw precedent did not constrain the authority of state courts to give broader effect to new rules of criminal procedure than was required by the precedent. The opinion, which reversed a Minnesota Supreme Court ruling, was written by Justice John Paul Stevens.
The two dissenters were Justice Anthony Kennedy (who wrote the dissenting opinion) and Chief Justice John G. Roberts. Note the lineup: the court’s four liberals and three conservatives teamed up on one side, with the chief justice and “swing vote” Kennedy on the other.
“We thought the argument could appeal to everybody,” Butler says. “We thought the conservatives would take to the states’ rights aspect while the more liberal justices could take to the expanse of [defendants’] rights. In particular, we thought Justice Scalia would be receptive to [the former], and at the oral argument he did not indicate that he was. In fact, he indicated the exact opposite.”
Nonetheless, Butler’s one-two punch approach proved a winning combination.
Danforth was not the first time Butler proved his mettle as a public defender. He was the point person on issues arising out of Blakely v. Washington, the 2004 U.S. Supreme Court case that turned sentencing law on its head. “We were swamped with cases. We never ran the numbers but I bet [the] majority of people in prison who had upward departures brought motions,” Butler says.
Blakely found unconstitutional sentencing schemes where judges rather than juries made the factual determination of the existence of aggravating factors justifying upward departures from the sentences recommended by sentencing guidelines.
Many states — including Minnesota — had to revise their procedures.
After Blakely, Butler volunteered to handle resentencing issues, and soon found himself inundated with motions. There was a lot of confusion at the trial court level until the Minnesota Supreme Court decided the 2006 cases of State v. Chauvin and Hankerson v. State, which let stand the trial court’s use of resentencing juries.
Butler tips his hat to Spurbeck for his help on Danforth and to his boss, Larry Hammerling, who gave him the opportunity to run with the Blakely issues, as well as to his friend and mentor Steven Russett.
