Date: July 24, 2018
On April 17, 2018, the Supreme Court decided Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018), striking down the federal definition of "crime of violence” in 18 U.S.C. § 16 as unconstitutionally vague. The Court had done something similar in Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), holding the similarly worded residual clause in the “violent felony” definition of the Armed Career Criminal Act to be void for vagueness.
The potential impact of Dimaya on federal criminal statutes, including 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), was explored in Part 2 of our Dimaya webinar series. While Part 2 focused on federal prisoners whose convictions have not yet become final, this Part 3 installment of our 4-part series will take up where Part 2 left off by addressing two distinct issues: (1) how to use Dimaya to challenge convictions that have become final—28 U.S.C. § 2255; and (2) other challenges to predicate offenses beyond Dimaya.
Like Part 2, this webinar is targeted to practitioners with a working knowledge of the categorical and modified categorical approaches (which was covered in Part 1), a familiarity with the Supreme Court’s related holding in Johnson, and a basic understanding of the “crime of violence” definitions in 18 U.S.C. § 16 and 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3). This webinar also assumes participants have viewed and are familiar with the matters explored in Part 2 of the Dimaya webinar series.