Supreme Court Action May Impact Murder Case Outcome

The Supreme Court has vacated a previous judgment in the case of William E. Neilly v. Michigan and remanded it to the Supreme Court of Michigan for further consideration. This action follows a recent Supreme Court decision in Ellingburg v. United States that could impact restitution orders in criminal cases.

Background of the Cases

Both cases involve challenges to court-ordered restitution made possible by laws enacted after the initial offense for which an individual was convicted. In Ellingburg v. United States, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed a ruling requiring Holsey Ellingburg, Jr., sentenced in 1996 for a 1995 bank robbery, to pay $7,567.25 in restitution. The court determined that restitution ordered under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA) of 1996 constitutes criminal punishment, impacting its legality under the Ex Post Facto Clause.

Details of the Neilly Case

William Neilly was sentenced to life without parole in 1993 for felony murder, conspiracy, and firearms charges stemming from an armed robbery that resulted in the death of a 17-year-old. He was a juvenile at the time of the offense. Following a ruling that mandatory life-without-parole sentences are unconstitutional for juveniles, Neilly was resentenced to 35-to-60 years’ imprisonment and released on parole in January 2024. The resentencing court also ordered Neilly to pay $14,895.78 in restitution to cover funeral expenses.
When Neilly was initially sentenced, state statutes allowed courts to order restitution, but none was ordered. By the time of his resentencing, Michigan law mandated restitution regardless of a defendant’s ability to pay. Neilly appealed, arguing the restitution violated the Ex Post Facto Clause. Lower courts ruled against him, and he subsequently petitioned the Supreme Court.

His attorneys argued that the obligation to pay restitution can significantly hinder reentry for individuals rebuilding their lives after incarceration. State attorneys countered that the Michigan Supreme Court’s ruling correctly identified restitution as not being punishment for purposes of the Ex Post Facto Clause, and that Michigan’s restitution statutes offer accommodations such as allowing restitution in services or installment payments.

Arguments Presented

Amanda K. Rice, Andrew J. Clopton, S. Matthew Krsacok, Claire Alexis Ward, and Jessica Zimbelman, representing Neilly, argued that Michigan’s restitution scheme, like others, uses “penalty” language, is imposed during sentencing, and carries serious consequences for non-compliance, indicating an intent to punish.
Senior Assistant Prosecutor Heather S. Bergmann and Prosecuting Attorney Jeffrey S. Getting, representing the state, argued that Neilly’s reliance on the word “penalty” to demonstrate punishment was without merit.

Next Steps

The Supreme Court has remanded the case back to the Supreme Court of Michigan for further consideration in light of the Ellingburg v. United States ruling.