Whether the execution of the geofence warrant violated the Fourth Amendment.
Whether the execution of the geofence warrant violated the Fourth Amendment. Held: Use of a geofence warrant is a search for Fourth Amendment purposes. Expanding Carpenter v. United States (2018) 585 U.S. 296, the majority held that an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in their cell-phone location information. Following the robbery of a credit union, police served Google with…
Whether federal relief was available under Seibert for failure to instruct a jury that it may evaluate the lawfulness of a defendant’s admitted confession?
Whether the federal circuit court improperly granted habeas relief under Missouri v. Seibert (2004) 542 U. S. 600? Held: Federal habeas petition improperly granted because defendants have no clearly established federal right to have a jury evaluate the lawfulness of a defendant's confessions after the trial court admitted the confession under Miranda or Seibert. Seibert held unconstitutional the interrogation tactic under…
Constitutional exceptions to appeal waivers
1. Whether the only permissible exceptions to a general appeal waiver are for claims of ineffective assistance of counsel or that the sentence exceeds the statutory maximum. 2. Whether an appeal waiver applies when the sentencing judge advises the defendant that he has a right to appeal and the government does not object. Held: An appeal waiver is unenforceable when…
Second amendment – prohibition of possession of a firearm by an unlawful user of controlled substances
Whether 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3), the federal statute that prohibits the possession of firearms by a person who "is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance," violates the Second Amendment as applied to respondent. Held: The government’s prosecution of Mr. Hemani under §922(g)(3)’s unlawful user provision is inconsistent with the Second Amendment. Hemani surrendered a gun he kept…
Whether the court of appeal may consider post-trial evidence in determining prejudice?
Whether the Court of Appeal improperly analyzed evidence which was not presented to the jury in determining whether error under Giglio v. United States (1972) 405 U. S. 150, was prejudicial? Held: The Court of Appeal should not have considered post-trial DNA evidence in assessing whether the state supreme court reasonably determined that a federal error was nonprejudicial. The circuit court…
Peremptory challenges under Batson
Whether, under the standards set forth in AEDPA, 28 U.S.C. §2254(d), the Mississippi Supreme Court unreasonably determined that petitioner waived his right to rebut the prosecutor's asserted race-neutral reasons for exercising peremptory strikes against four black jurors. Held: The Mississippi Supreme Court unreasonably applied the clearly established Batson precedents and unreasonably determined that Pitchford waived his opportunity to rebut the…
How multiple I.Q. scores may impact a claim of intellectual disability.
Whether and how courts may consider the cumulative effect of multiple IQ scores in assessing an Atkins claim. [Editor's Note: In Atkins v. Virginia (2002) 536 U.S. 304, the USSC held that executing a person with an intellectual disability was excessive punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment.] Held: "The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted." This case was dismissed on…
Reasonable articulable suspicion sufficient to justify a seizure.
In assessing whether an officer had reasonable suspicion to seize the defendant, the totality of the circumstances analysis precludes the “evaluation and rejection” of “factors in isolation from each other.” Reasonable articulable suspicion existed sufficient to justify the seizure of R.W. where (1) the officer received a radio dispatch call regarding a suspicious vehicle at a specified address, (2) the…
Whether the fugitive-tolling doctrine applies in the context of supervised release.
Whether the fugitive-tolling doctrine applies in the context of supervised release. Held: The Sentencing Reform Act does not authorize a rule automatically extending a defendant’s term of supervised release when the defendant absconds. ...Unlike an escaped prisoner who is not serving his sentence, under the Ninth Circuit’s rule, a defendant who fails to report remains bound by release terms and…
Sixth Amendment – May a Trial Court Prohibit Defendant and Counsel from Discussing Defendant’s Testimony During an Overnight Recess.
Whether a trial court abridges a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel by prohibiting the defendant and his counsel from discussing the defendant’s testimony during an overnight recess. Held: A qualified conferral order that prohibits only discussion of the defendant’s testimony for its own sake during a midtestimony overnight recess permissibly balances the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel against…
Whether Victim Restitution is Penal for Purposes of the Ex Post Facto Clause
Whether criminal restitution under the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act is penal for purposes of the Constitution’s ex post facto clause, which prohibits laws that retroactively increase the punishment for a crime or criminalize conduct that was legal when it occurred. The act extended the time period for which defendants were required to make restitution payment and added interest assessments. Held:…
Whether the emergency-aid exception requires probable cause.
Whether law enforcement may enter a home without a search warrant based on less than probable cause that an emergency is occurring, or whether the emergency-aid exception requires probable cause. Held: The objective reasonableness standard in Brigham City v. Stuart (2006) 547 U.S. 398, which permits warrantless home entries to render emergency aid, applies without "further gloss" and was satisfied…
Successive federal habeas petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2244
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1), “[a] claim presented in a second or successive habeas corpus application under section 2254 that was presented in a prior application shall be dismissed.” (emphasis added). The first question presented is: Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1) applies to a claim presented in a second or successive motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Under…
Second Amendment – prohibition of firearms by licensed carriers on private property open to the public.
Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in holding, in direct conflict with the Second Circuit, that Hawaii may presumptively prohibit the carry of handguns by licensed concealed carry permit holders on private property open to the public unless the property owner affirmatively gives express permission to the handgun carrier? Held: Hawaii’s law prohibiting licensed concealed-carry permit holders from carrying handguns on…
Whether state habeas procedures procedurally barred the Court from reviewing a Napue error?
This case presents the following questions: 1. a. Whether the State's suppression of the key prosecution witness's admission he was under the care of a psychiatrist and failure to correct that witness's false testimony about that care and related diagnosis violate the due process of law. See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264…
Does Enforcement of Generally Applicable Laws Regulating Camping on Public Property Constitute Cruel and Unusual Punishment?
In Martin v. City of Boise, 920 F.3d 584 (9th Cir. 2019), the Ninth Circuit held that the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause prevents cities from enforcing criminal restrictions on public camping unless the person has “access to adequate temporary shelter.” Id. at 617 & n.8. In this case, the Ninth Circuit extended Martin to a classwide injunction prohibiting the…
Whether Prosecution Expert is Permitted to Convey Testimonial Statements of Nontestifying Forensic Analyst Under Certain Conditions
Whether the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment permits the prosecution in a criminal trial to present testimony by a substitute expert conveying the testimonial statements of a non-testifying forensic analyst, on the grounds that (a) the testifying expert offers some independent opinion and the analyst’s statements are offered not for their truth but to explain the expert’s opinion, and…
Whether Jury Must Find Defendant’s Prior Convictions Were “Committed on Occasions Different from One Another”
Whether the Constitution requires a jury trial and proof beyond a reasonable doubt to find that a defendant’s prior convictions were “committed on occasions different from one another,” as is necessary to impose an enhanced sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1). Held: The Sixth Amendment requires jury determination by proof beyond a reasonable doubt of…
Whether Prohibiting Possession of Firearms by Persons Subject to Domestic-Violence Restraining Order Violates Second Amendment
Whether 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(8), which prohibits the possession of firearms by persons subject to domestic-violence restraining orders, violates the Second Amendment on its face. Held: In an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court upholds a federal law prohibiting individuals subject to a domestic violence restraining order from possessing firearms. The analysis of a law burdening the Second Amendment right must consider…
Test to Determine Whether the Due Process Clause Requires a State or Local Government to Provide a Post Seizure Probable Cause Hearing Before Forfeiture Proceeding
In determining whether the Due Process Clause requires a state or local government to provide a post seizure probable cause hearing prior to a statutory judicial forfeiture proceeding and, if so, when such a hearing must take place, should district courts apply the “speedy trial” test employed in United States v. $8,850, 461 U.S. 555 (1983) and Barker v. Wingo,…
Does the Double Jeopardy Clause Prohibit Second Prosecution for Crime of which Defendant Was Previously Acquitted?
The Georgia Supreme Court held that a jury’s verdict of acquittal on one criminal charge and its verdict of guilty on a different criminal charge arising from the same facts were logically and legally impossible to reconcile. It called the verdicts “repugnant,” vacated both of them, and subsequently held that the defendant could be prosecuted a second time on both…
Appropriate Test for Determining Whether a “True Threat” is Unprotected By the First Amendment
Whether, to establish that a statement is a “true threat” unprotected by the First Amendment, the government must show that the speaker subjectively knew or intended the threatening nature of the statement, or whether it is enough to show that an objective “reasonable person” would regard the statement as a threat of violence. Held: True threats of violence are outside…
Confrontation Clause–Admitting Codefendant’s Redacted Confession that Inculpates a Defendant
Whether admitting a codefendant's redacted out-of-court confession that immediately inculpates a defendant based on the surrounding context violates the defendant's rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. Held: Prosecutors have long tried criminal defendants jointly in cases where the defendants are alleged to have engaged in a common criminal scheme. However, when prosecutors seek to introduce a nontestifying…
Multiple Constitutional Challenges to ICWA
The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in four related ICWA cases. They were consolidated for briefing and oral argument. Filings and activity in the cases was reflected on the docket for Haaland v. Brackeen, case number 21-376. All the cases sought review of the Fifth Circuit's decision in Brackeen v. Haaland (5th Cir. 2021) 994 F.3d 249, cert. granted 2/28/2022 (21-376,…
Proper Remedy for Government’s Failure to Prove Venue
Whether the proper remedy for the government’s failure to prove venue is an acquittal barring re-prosecution of the offense, as the Fifth and Eighth Circuits have held, or whether instead the government may re-try the defendant for the same offense in a different venue, as the Sixth, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits have held. The U.S. Constitution permits retrial when…
Second Amendment Right for Ordinary Law-Abiding Citizens to Carry Handguns Outside the Home for Self-Defense
New York prohibits its ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying a handgun outside the home without a license, and it denies licenses to every citizen who fails to convince the state that he or she has “proper cause” to carry a firearm. In District of Columbia v. Heller, this Court held that the Second Amendment protects “the individual right to possess…