On Point blog, page 2 of 3
Rafael Arriaza Gonzalez v. Thaler, USSC No. 10-895, cert granted 6/13/11
Decision below: 623 F. 3d 222 (5th Cir. 2010)
Questions Presented (from SCOTUS docket page):
1. WAS THERE JURISDICTION TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY UNDER 28 U.S.C. §2253(C) AND TO ADJUDICATE PETITIONER’S APPEAL?
2. WAS THE APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS OUT OF TIME UNDER 28 U.S.C. §2244(D)(1) DUE TO “THE DATE ON WHICH THE JUDGMENT BECAME FINAL BY THE CONCLUSION OF DIRECT REVIEW OR THE EXPIRATION OF THE TIME FOR SEEKING SUCH REVIEW”?
Luis Mariano Martinez v. Ryan, USSC No. 10-1001, cert granted 6/6/11
Decision below: Martinez v. Schriro, 623 F.3d 731 (9th Cir. 2010)
Whether a defendant in a state criminal case who is prohibited by state law from raising on direct appeal any claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, but who has a state-law right to raise such a claim in a first postconviction proceeding, has a federal constitutional right to effective assistance of first post-conviction counsel specifically with respect to his ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim.
Barion Perry v. New Hampshire, USSC No. 10-8974, cert granted 5/31/11
Decision below: New Hampshire Supreme Court, No. 2009-0590, 11/18/2010 (summary order); Perry’s brief below; New Hampshire’s brief below
When a witness in a criminal case identifies a suspect out-of-court, under suggestive circumstances which give rise to a substantial likelihood of later misidentification, due process requires the trial judge to determine whether the out-ofcourt identification and any subsequent in-court identification are reliable before either may be admitted into evidence.
Judulang v. Holder, USSC No. 10-694, cert granted 4/19/11
Decision below (9th Cir, unpublished)
For more than 25 years, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) held that a legal permanent resident (LPR) who is deportable due to a criminal conviction could seek a discretionary waiver of removal under Section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §1182(c), provided that the conviction also would have constituted a waivable basis for exclusion.
Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of the County of Burlington, USSC NO. 10-945, Cert Granted 4/4/11
Decision below (621 F.3d 296 (3rd Cir 2010))
Whether the Fourth Amendment permits a jail to conduct a suspicionless strip search of every individual arrested for any minor offense no matter what the circumstances.
Caselaw in this Circuit has long rejected suspicionless jail strip searches for minor offenses. Mary Beth G.
Greene v. Fisher, USSC No. 10-637, cert granted 4/4/11
Decision below (3rd Cir No. 07-2163, 5/28/10)
Question Presented (by Scotusblog):
For purposes of adjudicating a state prisoner’s petition for federal habeas relief, what is the temporal cutoff for whether a decision from this Court qualifies as “clearly established Federal law” under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), as amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996?
Here’s the pitch Greene successfully made:
This case presents a fundamental question of federal habeas procedure in the post-AEDPA world: What is the temporal cutoff for when decisions from this Court count as “clearly established Federal law”?
Maples v. Thomas, USSC No. 10-63, Cert Granted 3/21/11
Decision below (11th Cir No. 07-15187, 10/26/09)
Question Presented (by Scotusblog):
Whether the Eleventh Circuit properly held that there was no “cause” to excuse any procedural default where petitioner was blameless for the default, the state’s own conduct contributed to the default, and petitioner’s attorneys of record were no longer functioning as his agents at the time of any default.
After Maples lost his direct appeal in (Alabama) state court,
Billy Joe Reynolds v. U.S., USSC No. 10-6549, Cert Granted 1/24/11
Decision below (3rd Cir No. 08-4747, 5/14/10)
Question Presented (by Scotusblog):
Validity of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act and its implementing regulations.
The newly granted sex offender case involves an attempt to challenge the retroactive application of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act.
Howes v. Randall Lee Fields, USSC No. 10-680, Cert. Granted 1/24/11
Decision below (617 F.3d 813 (6th Cir 2010))
Question Presented (by Scotusblog):
Whether this Court’s clearly established precedent under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 holds that a prisoner is always “in custody” for purposes of Miranda any time that prisoner is isolated from the general prison population and questioned about conduct occurring outside the prison regardless of the surrounding circumstances.
The grant appears to raise the recurrent problem of whether Miranda warnings are always and necessarily required when someone already incarcerated is interrogated by the police on a different offense.
Missouri v. Galin E. Frye, USSC No. 10-444, Cert. Granted 1/7/11
Decision below (311 S.W.3d 350, Mo. Ct. App)
Contrary to the holding in Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985)–which held that a defendant must allege that, but for counsel’s error, the defendant would have gone to trial–can a defendant who validly pleads guilty successfully assert a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel by alleging instead that,