No. 24-6178

Michael Harvel v. United States

Lower Court: Sixth Circuit
Docketed: 2024-12-19
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
IFP Experienced Counsel
Tags: civil-rights color-of-law eighth-amendment kidnapping sexual-assault statute-of-limitations
Key Terms:
DueProcess FifthAmendment Punishment JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2025-03-21
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether 18 U.S.C. § 242 allows the death penalty for state actor sexual assault and kidnapping under color of law, triggering an unlimited statute of limitations

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED Where a state actor sexually assaults and kidnaps a fellow employee “under color of law,” does 18 U.S.C. § 242 proscribe as a sentencing option the death penalty, such that a limitless statute of limitations under 18 U.S.C. § 3281 applies? Here, Petitioner Harvel was charged with violations of 18 U.S.C. § 242 for allegedly sexually assaulting and kidnapping fellow employees while on a state government job. Those crimes are not capital offenses — neither kidnapping nor sexual crimes are punishable by death in the federal system where no death results. Nor did Congress intend to make them such when in 1994 it added the death penalty as a punishment for civil rights murders. Further, this Court has made clear that such punishment would violate the Eighth Amendment, therefore, Congress would not likely have knowingly promulgated an unconstitutional statute in 1994. The Sixth Circuit’s holding that 18 U.S.C. § 3281 limitless statute of limitations applies to Harvel’s crimes, because they are “punishable by death,” is an absurd reading of the statute. ii RELATED CASES Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 14(1)(b) ii), Petitioner submits these cases which are directly related to this Petition: none ili

Docket Entries

2025-03-24
Petition DENIED.
2025-03-06
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/21/2025.
2025-03-04
Reply of Michael Harvel submitted.
2025-03-04
Reply of petitioner Michael Harvel filed. (Distributed)
2025-02-20
Brief of United States in opposition submitted.
2025-02-20
Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.
2025-01-07
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including February 20, 2025.
2025-01-06
Motion of United States for an extension of time submitted.
2025-01-06
Motion to extend the time to file a response from January 21, 2025 to February 20, 2025, submitted to The Clerk.
2024-12-17

Attorneys

Michael Harvel
Kevin Michael SchadOffice of the Federal Public Defender , Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. PrelogarSolicitor General, Respondent
Sarah M. HarrisActing Solicitor General, Respondent