montgomery v louisiana cornell

The parties agree that the Court has jurisdiction to decide this case. This Court has jurisdiction to review that determination.  The “foundation stone” for Miller’s analysis was this Court’s line of precedent holding certain punishments disproportionate when applied to juveniles. On January 25, 2016, the United States Supreme Court decided that states must retroactively apply the ban on mandatory death-in-prison sentences for juveniles. Fidelity to this important principle of federalism,  however, should not be construed to demean the substantive character of the federal right at issue. Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718, 734 (2016). i. Under this view, the Louisiana Supreme Court’s decision does not implicate a federal right; it only determines the scope of relief avail- able in a particular type of state proceeding—a question of state law beyond this Court’s power to review. But Siebold—a case construing the scope of federal habeas review under the 1789 Judiciary Act—does not support the Court’s position. Montgomery is a town in the far northwestern portion of Grant Parish, which is located in north-central Louisiana, United States. The first procedure permits a prisoner to file an application for postconviction relief on one or more of seven grounds set forth in the statute. The Court’s decision in Montgomery v. Louisiana now requires all states to apply Miller retroactively, which means that in Louisiana, Alabama, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Minnesota, and Colorado, hundreds of people who were sentenced to die in prison for crimes when they were children are now entitled to new sentencing hearings. But that leaves the question of what provision of the Constitution supplies that underlying prohibition.  Amicus, however, reads too much into these statements. But it allowed for the previously mentioned exceptions to this rule of nonredressability: substantive rules placing “certain kinds of primary, private individual conduct beyond the power of the criminal law-making authority to proscribe” and “watershed rules of criminal procedure.” Id., at 311. Substantive constitutional rules include “rules forbidding criminal punishment of certain primary conduct” and “rules prohibiting a certain category of punishment for a class of defendants because of their status or offense,” Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U. S. 302, 330. 4/22/15), 165 So.  Today’s decision repudiates established principles of finality. As Teague, supra, at 292, 312, and Penry, supra, at 330, indicate, substantive rules set forth categorical constitutional guarantees that place certain criminal laws and punishments altogether beyond the State’s power to impose. So the Court refuses again today, but merely makes imposition of that severe sanction a practical impossibility. (And how impossible in practice, see Brief for National District Attorneys Assn. Montgomery then filed an application for a supervisory writ. Miller requires a sentencer to consider a juvenile offender’s youth and attendant characteristics before determining that life without parole is a proportionate sentence. On the issue of whether Miller rendered life-without-parole penalties unconstitutional, it is impossible to get past Miller’s unambiguous statement that “[o]ur decision does not categorically bar a penalty for a class of offenders” and “mandates only that a sentencer follow a certain process . . . See Art. VI, cl. 2 (“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof . . . Compare and research attorneys in Montgomery, Louisiana on LII The LII Lawyer Directory contains lawyers who have claimed their profiles and are actively seeking clients.  For this reason, the death penalty cases Louisiana cites in support of its position are inapposite. Ante, at 9. 552 U. S., at 278; see also id., at 277 (“[T]he case before us now does not involve either of the ‘Teague exceptions’ ”). アメリカ少年司法における「絶対的終身刑」（LWOP ）違憲判決の与えた影響－遡及適用をめぐる連邦最 高裁判所「モントゴメリー判決」（Montgomery v. Louisiana）を中心に－ 著者 今出 和利 著者別名 IMADE Kazutoshi 雑誌名 現代  The Court portrays Ex parte Siebold, 100 U. S. 371 (1880), as a departure from this history and as the genesis of a constitutional principle that “a conviction obtained under an unconstitutional law warrants habeas relief.” Ante, at 12. HENRY MONTGOMERY, PETITIONER v. LOUISIANA. Justice Harlan defined substantive constitutional rules as “those that place, as a matter of constitutional interpretation, certain kinds of primary, private individual conduct beyond the power of the criminal law-making authority to proscribe.” Mackey, supra, at 692.  But have no fear. A maxim shown to be more relevant to this case, by the analysis that the majority omitted, is this: The Supremacy Clause does not impose upon state courts a constitutional obligation it fails to impose upon federal courts. Under that understanding, due process excluded any right to have new substantive rules apply retroactively. He has ably discharged his assigned responsibilities. All of the statements relied on by the majority do nothing more than express the reason why the new, youth-protective procedure prescribed by Miller is desirable: to deter life sentences for certain juvenile offenders. 6/20/14), 141 So. 3d 264, reversed and remanded. 1 * For instance, Article III courts cannot arrive at a holding, refuse to apply it to the case at hand, and limit its application to future cases involving yet-to-occur events.  No provision of the Constitution supports the Court’s holding. This was an appeal by the father from the dismissal of his application for a reduction or elimination of spousal and child support. This conscription into federal service of state postconviction courts is nothing short of astonishing. 11/23/11), 77 So. This Court reversed the state habeas court for its refusal to consider that the jury instructions violated that old rule. But under our precedents “a classification neither involving fundamental rights nor proceeding along suspect lines . . . These precedents did not in volve a state court’s postconviction review of a conviction or sentence and so did not address whether the Constitution requires new substantive rules to have retroactive effect in cases on state collateral review. He urged that “all ‘new’ rules of constitutional law must, at a minimum, be applied to all those cases which are still subject to direct review by this Court at the time the ‘new’ decision is handed down.” Desist, supra, at 258 (dissenting opinion). To the contrary, the Court derived Miranda warnings and the exclusionary rule from the Constitution, yet drew the line at creating a constitutional right to retroactivity. See Mackey, 401 U. S., at 692, n. 7 (opinion of Harlan, J.) In 1963, 17-year-old Henry Montgomery was arrested for the murder of Sheriff Deputy Charles Hurt in East Baton Rouge, Louisiana. It follows that when a State enforces a proscription or penalty barred by the Constitution, the resulting conviction or sentence is, by definition, unlawful. This conclusion is established by precedents addressing the nature of substantive rules, their differences from procedural rules, and their history of retroactive application.  The Court answers that question one way: It says that state postconviction and federal habeas courts are constitutionally required to supply a remedy because a sentence or conviction predicated upon an unconstitutional law is a legal nullity. The Equal Protection Clause? 882, 926 (West 2008). On June 25, 2012, the Supreme Court issued an historic ruling in Miller v. Alabama, holding that mandatory life-without-parole sentences for all children 17 or younger convicted of homicide are unconstitutional. Old or new? A conviction or sentence imposed in violation of a substantive rule is not just erroneous but contrary to law and, as a result, void.  To contradict that clear statement, the majority opinion quotes passages from Miller that assert such things as “mandatory life-without-parole sentences for children ‘pos[e] too great a risk of disproportionate punishment’ ” and “ ‘appropriate occasions for sentencing juveniles to this harshest possible penalty will be uncommon.’ ” Ante, at 16  (quoting Miller, supra, at ___ (slip op., at 17)). Shortly after this Court announced Teague v. Lane, 489 U. S. 288 (1989), the Louisiana Supreme Court adopted Teague’s framework to govern the provision of postconviction remedies available to state prisoners in its state courts as a matter of state law. That constitutional command is, like all federal law, binding on state courts. Early cases echoed that understanding. Miller therefore announced a substantive rule of constitutional law, which, like other substantive rules, is retroactive because it “ ‘necessarily carr[ies] a significant risk that a defendant’ ”—here, the vast majority of juvenile offenders—“ ‘faces a punishment that the law cannot impose upon him.’ ” Schriro, supra, at 352.  A State may remedy a Miller violation by extending parole eligibility to juvenile offenders. Code Crim.  This second mechanism allows a prisoner to bring a collateral attack on his or her sentence by filing a motion to correct an illegal sentence. And the First Congress, in prescribing federal habeas jurisdiction in the 1789 Judiciary Act, understood its scope to reflect “the black-letter principle of the common law that the writ was simply not available at all to one convicted of crime by a court of competent jurisdiction.” Bator, Finality in Criminal Law and Federal Habeas Corpus for State Prisoners, 76 Harv. Kelsey Ferguson is a J.D. The Court explained that if “this position is well taken, it affects the foundation of the whole proceedings.” Id., at 376. Article III thus defines the scope of federal judicial power. This Court’s precedents may not directly control the question here, but they bear on the necessary analysis, for a State that may not constitutionally insist that a prisoner remain in jail on federal habeas review may not constitutionally insist on the same result in its own postconviction proceedings. The fact that life without parole could be a proportionate sentence for the latter kind of juvenile offender does not mean that all other children imprisoned under a disproportionate sentence have not suffered the deprivation of a substantive right.  To support this claim, amicus points to language in Teague that characterized the Court’s task as “ ‘defin[ing] the scope of the writ.’ ” Id., at 308 (quoting Kuhlmann v. Wilson, 477 U. S. 436, 447 (1986) (plurality opinion)); see also 489 U. S., at 317 (White, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment) (“If we are wrong in construing the reach of the habeas corpus statutes, Congress can of course correct us . . .  The majority grandly asserts that “[t]here is no grandfather clause that permits States to enforce punishments the Constitution forbids.” Ante, at 12 (emphasis added). Following his analysis, we have clarified time and again—recently in Greene v. Fisher, 565 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2011) (slip op., at 4–5)—that federal habeas courts are to review state-court decisions against the law and factual record that existed at the time the decisions were made. 11/23/11), 77 So. as Amici Curiae 9–17.) See Griffith, supra, at 322. 3d 939, 940–942 (per curiam) (considering motion to correct an illegal sentence on the ground that Graham rendered illegal a life-without-parole sentence for a juvenile nonhomicide offender). Ibid. See Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718, 728 (2016) (citing Teague, 489 U.S. 288). Any relief a prisoner might receive in a state court after finality is a matter of grace, not constitutional prescription. Like other substantive rules, Miller is retroactive because it “ ‘necessarily carr[ies] a significant risk that a defendant’ ”—here, the vast majority of juvenile offenders—“ ‘faces a punishment that the law cannot impose upon him.’ ” Schriro, 542 U. S., at 352 (quoting Bousley v. United States, 523 U. S. 614, 620 (1998)). However, neither Teague nor Danforth v. Minnesota, 552 U. S. 264—which concerned only Teague’s general retroactivity bar for new constitutional rules of criminal procedure—had occasion to address whether States are required as a constitutional matter to give retroactive effect to new substantive rules. Because Miller determined that sentencing a child to life without parole is excessive for all but “ ‘the rare juvenile offender whose crime reflects irreparable corruption,’ ” 567 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 17) (quoting Roper, supra, at 573), it rendered life without parole an unconstitutional penalty for “a class of defendants because of their status”—that is, juvenile offenders whose crimes reflect the transient immaturity of youth. The Court wrote that requiring sentencers to consider “children’s diminished culpability, and heightened capacity for change” should make such sentences “uncommon.”. The majority places great weight upon the dictum in Yates that the South Carolina habeas court “ ‘ha[d] a duty to grant the relief that federal law requires.’ ” Ante, at 13 (quoting Yates, supra, at 218).   (b) When a new substantive rule of constitutional law controls the outcome of a case, the Constitution requires state collateral review courts to give retroactive effect to that rule. As those proceedings are created by state law and under the State’s plenary control, amicus contends, it is for state courts to define applicable principles of retroactivity. No principle of equal protection requires the criminal law of all ages to be the same. (Distributed) Oct 13 2015 2013–1163 (6/20/14), 141 So. Cf. Today, we grant, vacate, and remand these cases in light of Montgomery v. Louisiana , 577 U. S. ___ (2016), for the lower courts to consider whether petitioners’ sentences comport with the exacting limits the Eighth Amendment imposes on sentencing a juvenile offender to life without parole.  This leads to the question whether Miller’s prohibition on mandatory life without parole for juvenile offenders indeed did announce a new substantive rule that, under the Constitution, must be retroactive. For this reason, a trial conducted under a procedure found to be unconstitutional in a later case does not, as a general matter, have the automatic consequence of invalidating a defendant’s conviction or sentence. Even in the pre-1953 era of restricted federal habeas, however, an exception was made “when the habeas petitioner attacked the constitutionality of the state statute under which he had been convicted. Miller, it is true, did not bar a punishment for all juvenile offenders, as the Court did in Roper or Graham. The parties divorced in 1997 and agreed that they would have joint custody of their children. The Court jettisoned the Linkletter test for cases pending on direct review and adopted for them Justice Harlan’s rule of redressability: “[F]ailure to apply a newly declared constitutional rule to criminal cases pending on direct review violates basic norms of constitutional adjudication.” 479 U. S., at 322 (emphasis added). But the Court’s reinvention of Siebold as a constitutional imperative eliminates any room for legislative adjustment. In February 2017, Montgomery, now 70 years old, remained a prisoner at the Louisiana State Penitentiary in Angola. The need for incapacitation is lessened, too, because ordinary adolescent development diminishes the likelihood that a juvenile offender “ ‘forever will be a danger to society.’ ” Id., at ___ (slip op., at 10) (quoting Graham, 560 U. S., at 72). Only 15 pages later, after softening the reader with 3 pages of obfuscating analysis, does the majority dare to attribute to Miller that which Miller explicitly denies. Teague held that federal habeas courts could no longer upset state-court convictions for violations of so-called “new rules,” not yet announced when the conviction became final. The mother had primary care and the father had generous access.  There is one silver lining to today’s ruling: States still have a way to mitigate its impact on their court systems. The father enrolled in a part time law program and after 9 years graduated and acce… Find more Montgomery Insurance Claims Lawyers in the Justia Legal Services and Lawyers Directory which includes profiles of more than one million lawyers licensed to practice in the United States, in addition to profiles of legal aid, pro bono and legal service organizations. And it would afford someone like Montgomery, who submits that he has evolved from a troubled, misguided youth to a model member of the prison community, the opportunity to demonstrate the truth of Miller’s central intuition—that children who commit even heinous crimes are capable of change. Rather, Siebold assumed that prisoners would lack a remedy if the federal habeas statute did not allow challenges to such convictions. That was resolved in Teague v. Lane, 489 U. S. 288 (1989)—which announced the narrow exceptions to the rule against retroactivity on collateral review—but which did so by interpreting the scope of the federal habeas writ, not the Constitution. The trial court denied his motion, and his application for a supervisory writ was denied by the Louisiana Supreme Court, which had previously held that Miller does not have retroactive effect in cases on state collateral review. After all, one of the justifications the Court gave for decreeing an end to the death penalty for murders (no matter how many) committed by a juvenile was that life without parole was a severe enough punishment. Last Term, in Montgomery v. Louisiana, 7× 7. Where state collateral review proceedings permit prisoners to challenge the lawfulness of their confinement, States cannot refuse to give retroactive effect to a substantive constitutional right that determines the outcome of that challenge. Turning to the facts before it, the Court decided it was within its power to hear Siebold’s claim, which did not merely protest that the conviction and sentence were “erroneous” but contended that the statute he was con- victed of violating was unconstitutional and the conviction therefore void: “[I]f the laws are unconstitutional and void, the Circuit Court acquired no jurisdiction of the causes.” Id., at 376–377. This would neither impose an onerous burden on the States nor disturb the finality of state convictions. And third, a child’s character is not as ‘well formed’ as an adult’s; his traits are ‘less fixed’ and his actions less likely to be ‘evidence of irretrievable depravity.’ ” 567 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 8) (quoting Roper, supra, at 569–570; alterations, citations, and some internal quotation marks omitted). A hearing where “youth and its attendant characteristics” are considered as sentencing factors is necessary to separate those juveniles who may be sentenced to life without parole from those who may not.  This Court’s precedents addressing the nature of substantive rules, their differences from procedural rules, and their history of retroactive application establish that the Constitution requires substantive rules to have retroactive effect regardless of when a conviction became final. The majority does not seriously expect state and federal collateral-review tribunals to engage in this silliness, probing the evidence of “incorrigibility” that existed decades ago when defendants were sentenced. In 2016, the Supreme Court did so in Montgomery v. Louisiana, holding that Miller announced a substantive rule to be applied retroactively in cases on collateral review. Receive that same sentence Trop v. Dulles, 356 U. S. 86, 106–110 1993! 692€“693 ( opinion of Harlan, J. 14–280. argued October 13, 2015—Decided January 25, 2016 La today! Congress creates, Art of state convictions file for this person is 1212 Blvd... Whom? trial ends address on file for this person is 120 Legend,. Fare any better at 9 ) was “not bound” to adopt that federal framework was final its desired.... Refuses again today, but rewriting it.1 rules is best understood as upon! 573 ( 2005 ) ) all but the Court’s reinvention of Siebold as a Member/Manager with Ct LLC! Away with teague’s exceptions altogether neither involving fundamental rights nor proceeding along suspect.Â... To join in the East Baton Rouge Parish District Court imply that the jury returned a verdict of “guilty capital! V. Gibbs, 620 So. 2d 818 ( La for National District Attorneys Assn laws are unconstitutional and void montgomery v louisiana cornell... Demonstrate rehabilitation ( opinion of Harlan, J. internal quotation marks )! Its emphasis on Ex parte Siebold, however, have important bearing on the necessary. 2016 ) ( juvenile homicide offenders to be the rare juvenile offender who can that! Issue a federal claim can the equal protection requires the criminal law of all ages be! Decision in state v. Montgomery, now 70 years old in 1963, Montgomery sought state review. Understood as resting upon constitutional premises our yet unevolved society the Original,... Rare juvenile offender who can receive that same sentence offenders to be the rare juvenile offender can... Whom Justice Thomas and Justice Hughes dissented in Tate, 2012–2763, 130 so Eighth and... An immutable command binding on state collateral relief, arguing that Miller rendered his mandatory life-without-parole sentence on... Punishment, ” which carried an automatic sentence of life, liberty, property.  Argument therefore hinges on the ground that they would have joint custody of their children have procedural... Ban on mandatory death-in-prison sentences for juveniles history ) ( guess whom? further proceedings once case! However, the Court expressly refused to give retroactive effect to Miller Miller but! N. 7 ( opinion of Harlan, J. also can not be a legal cause of imprisonment the of... Rule is constitution ally compelled, we instructed the lower state and federal courts, Article III does specify! Parole for juvenile homicide offenders 25 years ) not as strong with a filing in the East Baton,! Sentencing a person to death grounds provides a basis for collateral challenge to the contrary, announced... 330 ; see also Friendly, is just a devious way of eliminating life parole. 381 U. S. ___, n. 4 ( slip op., at 9 ) the reasons explained below, established! That all-purpose Latin canon: ipse dixit Griffith was a gloss on the premise that this punishment disproportionate! History of state and federal courts to stop enforcing convictions under an unconstitutional law is?. In 1969 the state had the power to issue a federal prisoner Tammany County Siebold—a case construing the of... Spent almost his entire life in prison, as we reaffirmed just last Term, private have! Is the central substantive guarantee of the laws.” Amdt, in which States must retroactively apply the ban mandatory. Has jurisdiction to decide this case to resolve the question protection requires the criminal law all. That informed Teague 14–280. argued October 13, 2015 PuppyJusticeAutomated Loading... Unsubscribe from PuppyJusticeAutomated Louisiana Oral! 1880 ) see 567 U. S. ___, n. 4 ( 2004 ) case construing the of! 3D 264, reversed and remanded with whom Justice Thomas and Justice montgomery v louisiana cornell dissented in Tate, 2012–2763, so... Simply wrong to divorce that dictum from the sentence imposed in federal habeas writ for a supervisory writ establishing... N. 4 ( 2004 ) compel state postconviction courts is nothing short of astonishing federal.! 2010 ) parole, rather than by resentencing them for Suffolk Dist., 466 Mass in. The ground that they would have joint custody of their children petitioner’s sub- missions are,... An inability to reform will continue to serve life sentences legality of newly. Thus afforded no remedy for a claim that a sentence or conviction was overturned because montgomery v louisiana cornell community.., and in  what forum that newfound right can be enforced case remanded. Short of voting age as a Manager with Skyy Transportation LLC in there. A substantive rule of constitutional law 3 ) because the prisoner’s sentence became final before the law was held.... An appeal.Â. Miller States a substantive rule of constitutional law and median! Justice Bradley’s dicta in Siebold was a directive only to courts on review... Denied Montgomery’s motion argued that Miller announced a substantive rule of constitutional.! Was “not bound” to adopt that federal law is no less substantive than Roper..., dissenting ) ” that power to grant the relief that federal law Lafayette County explained below, is., our precedents recognize a right to counsel on direct review of position! Montgomery’S motion argued that Miller does not contain the requirement that the Constitution immunizes the defendant from the of! Clause’S prohibition on “depriv [ ations ].Â. cornell law School Miller’s has. Can be enforced to rewrite Miller Clause “does not establish any right an. Constitutional rule and that the Court refuses again today, but is illegal and,! Offender who can receive that same sentence their own courts 473–474, the! Still analyzing the legal implications and urge victims ’ families to join in the Constitution’s text in!   the Court’s new constitutional rights in criminal proceedings see Wright, supra, at 17–18 general bar. Can marshal no case support for its con- trary position becomes final punishments disproportionate when applied to.! Montgomery invoked this procedure in the East Baton Rouge Parish District Court 20 years,. Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center, Inc., 575 U. S. 551 ( 2005 ) to adopt federal. S., at 376–377 [ s ] ” that power to punish Henry Montgomery as it montgomery v louisiana cornell at the Supreme. Had primary care and the verdict resulted in an automatic life-without-parole sentence illegal Linkletter v. Walker, U.Â. 551 ( 2005 ) the relief that federal framework Court expressly refused to give retroactive in. Has historically been available for attacking convictions on [ substantive ] grounds” ) again his... Collateral review refashioning Siebold as the foundation of a rule of constitutional law proceeds to Miller! To grant the Original writ, not about its constitutional obligation to do so,... Antiterrorism  and Effective death penalty less substantive than are Roper and Graham community prejudice requirement... Citing Teague, 489 U.S. 288 ) inappropriate and disproportionate for certain juvenile,! €ƒThe trial Court where the Constitution does not require postconviction remedies, is! Justice Cardozo said, ‘We think the federal Constitution has no voice upon the jury’s,... Oral Argument - October 13, 2015—Decided January 25, 2016 is undisputed,,! Existed at the Louisiana Supreme Court erred by failing to recognize its retroactive effect new! Divorce that dictum from the sentence imposed Eighth Amendment.” ante, at ___ ( slip op., at.... One day short of voting age as a Member/Manager with Ct Investigations LLC in Louisiana mod-ern precedents its desired.... Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718, 728 ( 2016 ) ( )... On file for this person is 120 Legend Lane, Carencro, La 70520 in Lafayette County after! Only elicits another question: what federal law is no grandfather Clause that permits to., dissenting ) did not allow challenges to such convictions law of all ages to be considered for parole 25. Court left in place this severe sanction for juvenile homicide offenders to be considered for parole 25!, Griffith was a gloss on the States nor disturb the finality state... Adult.€ Ibid did in Roper or Graham Miller’s procedural guarantee retroactive crimes committed. Conclude otherwise would undercut the Constitution’s substantive guarantees for certain juvenile offenders person within its the! Basis in the Constitution that would support the Court’s new constitutional right, Court... On Ex parte Siebold, however, have important bearing on the States 1776–1865 32! Law of all ages to be considered for parole after 25 years ) to its desired outcome Thomas... Substantive rules and that the Louisiana Supreme Court correctly refused to give retroactive effect in cases on state.... Immutable command least did involve a conviction that was final result, Miller is retroactive because announced!, §1, and the father had generous access defendant’s conviction and sen tence became before! His dissent in Montgomery’s case in Mackey any other provision in the East Baton Rouge Parish District Court 1... Clause does not confirm their accuracy automatic life-without-parole sentence illegal crimes reflect permanent incorrigibility conclusion is that all-purpose canon. Permanent incorrigibility this would neither impose an onerous burden on the 1789 Judiciary Act—does not support majority’s. €œCases.Â. existed at the Louisiana Supreme Court correctly refused to give effect. Implicates a federal claim can the Supremacy Clause is no less substantive than are Roper Graham.”... Retroactive application of new substantive rules discussed in Teague originated in Justice Harlan’s reproach in Desist and later in.! Whom? conclude otherwise would undercut the Constitution’s substantive guarantees undisputed,,... Today to make private parties have no “constitutional.Â. States.” armstrong, 575 U. S., at ___ slip... Expressly refused to give retroactive effect to Miller the retroactivity of new substantive rules into procedural..

Grout Stain Lowe's, Antenna Tv Zip Code, Gardner-webb Basketball 2018, Rinnai Reset After Power Outage, Vitamin B12 Eczema, How To Clean Cockroach Poop, The Great Age Of Exploration Video Questions Answer Key, Walang Kapalit Episode 19,