Summary
The U.S. Supreme Court has sent a murder restitution case back to Michigan's Supreme Court for reconsideration, impacting how restitution is applied in cases where laws changed after the crime took place. The decision relates to whether ordered payments, or restitution, count as criminal punishment under laws made after the crime. This follows a similar decision where a 1996 law was found to impose criminal punishment.
Key Facts
- The Supreme Court is reconsidering a Michigan case about restitution in a murder conviction.
- The case is William E. Neilly v. Michigan.
- Neilly was sentenced to life without parole in 1993 for murder and related charges.
- He was resentenced to 35-60 years and released on parole in 2024.
- The court ordered Neilly to pay nearly $15,000 for the victim's funeral expenses.
- Restitution became mandatory in Michigan after Neilly's original sentence.
- Neilly argues this violates the Ex Post Facto Clause, which prevents punishment using laws passed after the crime.
- The Supreme Court's decision references a similar case, Ellingburg v. United States, from earlier this month.
