State v. Rochelle (Makko Oko): Difference between revisions
mNo edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
|number of judges = | |number of judges = | ||
|decision by = | |decision by = | ||
| | |Majority = Gerlach, Reynolds, Graham, Sparks, Sullivan | ||
|dissenting = Aponte | |dissenting = Aponte | ||
|concur/dissent = | |concur/dissent = | ||
Latest revision as of 05:59, 16 February 2024
| State v. Rochelle | |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court, Opposh, Makko Oko |
| Decided | May 22, 2024 |
| Case history | |
| Appealed from | Appellate Court of Appeals of Makko Oko |
| Subsequent action(s) | Court judgement approving termination of free legal aid for Rochelle Vangelis overturned, case remanded and Rochelle convicted of all charges, executed on February 20th, 2025. |
| Case opinions | |
| Article 19 guarantees state legal assistance for any citizens who are "not [able to pay for their own]". The article does not state an exclusion for terrorists or those who commit treason. For the request to revoke citizenship, denied due to Article 12 stating a committance of a high crime, not an indictment of one. Request denied, court order for prohibiting legal aid overturned, case remanded. | |
| Majority | Gerlach, Reynolds, Graham, Sparks, Sullivan |
| Dissent | Aponte |
State v. Rochelle is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of Makko Oko on May 22nd, 2024 on a provision of the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2024 prohibiting free legal aid to those indicted on terrorism charges.
Background
State v. Rochelle began after Rochelle Vangelis, the defendant, attempted to overthrow the government and murdered a top ministerial official. In that, the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2024 was enacted in response to the attacks in an attempt to curb future attacks and grant more authority to government bodies in doing so. After its enactment, Rochelle was charged with "encouragement of terroristic acts" and terrorism, with the state invoking Article 24 to revoke access to their state-funded attorney. Rochelle self-appealed the order that was approved by the overseeing judge all the way up to the Supreme Court.
Effects
This case affirmed that all citizens irrespective of the indictment are entitled to free legal aid as long as they are low-income. In addition, the case restricted a once-broad power to revoke constitutionally guaranteed and protected citizenship to convicted offenders.
