On Point blog, page 1 of 2
Clifton T. McNeill v. United States, USSC No, 10-5258, Cert Granted 1/7/11
Decision below (CTA4)
The case appears to involve review of federal sentencing under the Armed Career Criminal Act. Consult Scotusblog page for further details.
Charles Andrew Fowler, aka Man v. U.S., USSC No. 10-5443, Cert Granted 11/15/10
Decision below (CTA 11)
Question Presented (phrasing by On Point; check Docket or Scotusblog links for subsequent posting of official recitation)
Whether conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(a)(1)(C) (murder with intent to prevent a person from communicating information about federal offense to federal law enforcement officer or judge) requires proof of an ongoing or imminent federal investigation.
No immediately apparent implications for state practice in this grant.
Jose Tolentino v. New York, USSC No. 09-11556, Cert. Granted 11/15/10
Dismissed as improvidently granted, 3/29/11
Decision below (New York Court of Appeals)
Question Presented (phrasing by On Point; check Docket or Scotusblog links for subsequent posting of official recitation)
Whether someone’s driving record is suppressible as the fruit of an illegal stop or arrest.
A mere 6 days ago, Mr. Badger raised an alert on the core of this issue:
J.D.B. v. North Carolina, USSC No. 09-11121, cert granted 11/1/10
Decision below (N.C. supreme court)
Question Presented:
Whether, in the context of interrogating a juvenile in a school setting, “custody” for purposes of triggering Miranda warnings is determined by a purely objective test; or includes subjective considerations such as the subject’s age and status as a special education student.
The nub of the lower court holding:
…
Turner v. Price, USSC No. 10-10, cert granted 11/1/10
Decision below (S.C. supreme court)
Questions Presented (courtesy, Scotusblog):
1) Whether an indigent defendant has a constitutional right to appointed counsel at a civil contempt proceeding that results in his incarceration; and 2) whether the Court has jurisdiction to review the decision of the South Carolina Supreme Court.
Turner got 12 months in jail for civil contempt for willful failure to pay child support (remedial contempt,
Davis v. U.S., USSC No. 09-11328, cert granted 11/1/10
Decision below (CTA11)
Question Presented (from cert petition):
Whether the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies to a search authorized by precedent at the time of the search that is subsequently ruled unconstitutional.
Fall-out from the Court’s decision in Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S.
Camreta v. Greene, USSC No. 09-1454 / Alford v. Greene, No. 09-1478, cert granted 10/12/10
Consolidated cases:
Camreta
Decision Below (9th Cir)
Question Presented (from SCOTUSblog):
Whether the Fourth Amendment requires a warrant, a court order, parental consent, or exigent circumstances before law enforcement and child welfare officials may conduct a temporary seizure and interview at a public school of a child whom they reasonably suspect was being sexually abused.
Kentucky v. King, USSC No. 09-1272, cert. grant 9/29/10
Decision below (KY supreme court)
Question Presented (from USSC docket post):
Police officers entered an apartment building in hot pursuit of a person who sold crack cocaine to an undercover informant. They heard a door slam, but were not certain which of two apartments the trafficker fled into. A strong odor of marijuana emanated from one of the doors, which prompted the officers to believe the trafficker had fled into that apartment.
Bullcoming v. New Mexico, USSC No. 09-10876, cert grant 9/28/10
Decision Below (New Mexico supreme court)
Whether the Confrontation Clause permits the prosecution to introduce testimonial statements of a nontestifying forensic analyst through the in-court testimony of a supervisor or other person who did not perform or observe the laboratory analysis described in the statements.
Cert. Petition
Follow-up to Melendez-Diaz v.
Pepper v. U.S., USSC No. 09-6822, cert. grant 6/28/10
Decision below (CTA8)
There is a conflict among the United States Courts of Appeals regarding a defendant’s post-sentencing rehabilitation and whether it can support a downward sentencing variance under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
Whether a federal district judge can consider a defendant’s post-sentencing rehabilitation as a permissible factor supporting a sentencing variance under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) after Gall v.