On Point blog, page 1 of 2

Moones Mellouli v. Eric Holder, Jr., Attorney General, USSC No. 13-1034, cert. granted 6/30/14

Question presented:

To trigger deportability under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i), must the government prove the connection between a drug paraphernalia conviction and a substance listed in section 802 of the Controlled Substances Act?

Read full article >

Larry Whitfield v. United States, USSC No. 13-9026, cert granted 6/12/14

Question presented:

Whether 18 U.S.C. § 2113(e), which provides a minimum sentence of ten years in prison and a maximum sentence of life imprisonment for a bank robber who forces another person “to accompany him” during the robbery or while in flight, requires proof of more than a de minimis movement of the victim.

Read full article >

Elonis v. United States, USSC No. 13-983, cert. granted 6/16/14

Questions presented

Whether, consistent with the First Amendment and Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003), conviction of threatening another person requires proof of the defendant’s subjective intent to threaten, as required by the Ninth Circuit and the supreme courts of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont; or whether it is enough to show that a “reasonable person” would regard the statement as threatening, as held by other federal courts of appeals and state courts of last resort.

Whether, as a matter of statutory interpretation, conviction of threatening another person under 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) requires proof of the defendant’s subjective intent to threaten.

Read full article >

John L. Yates v. United States, USSC No. 13-7451, cert. granted 4/28/14

Question presented:

Whether Mr. Yates was deprived of fair notice that destruction of fish would fall within the purview of 18 U.S.C. § 1519, where the term “tangible object” is ambiguous and undefined in the statute, and unlike the nouns accompanying “tangible object” in section 1519, possesses no record-keeping, documentary, or informational content or purpose?

Read full article >

Nicholas Brady Heien v. North Carolina, USSC No. 13-604, cert. granted 4/21/14

Question presented:

Whether a police officer’s mistake of law can provide the individualized suspicion that the Fourth Amendment requires to justify a traffic stop.

Read full article >

Samuel James Johnson v. United States, USSC No. 13-7120, cert. granted 4/21/14

Question presented:

Whether mere possession of a short-barreled shotgun should be treated as a violent felony under the Armed Career Criminal Act?

Read full article >

Robert M. Jennings v. William Stephens, Director, Texas Dep’t of Criminal Justice, USSC No. 13-7211, cert granted 3/24/14

Question Presented:

 Did the Fifth Circuit err in holding that a federal habeas petitioner who prevailed in the district court on an ineffective assistance of counsel claim must file a separate notice of appeal and motion for a certificate of appealability to raise an allegation of deficient performance that the district court rejected even though the Fifth Circuit acquired jurisdiction over the entire claim as a result of the respondent’s appeal?

Read full article >

U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether warrantless search of cell phone incident to arrest violates Fourth Amendment

David L. Riley v. California, USSC 13-132

Question presented:

Whether evidence admitted at petitioner’s trial was obtained in a search of petitioner’s cell phone that violated petitioner’s Fourth Amendment rights.

Lower court opinion: People v. Riley, No. D059840 (Cal. App. 4th Dist., Feb. 8, 2013) (unpublished)

Docket

Scotusblog page

United States v. Brima Wurie,

Read full article >

Kevin Loughrin v. United States, USSC 13-316, cert granted 12/13/13

Question Presented:

Whether the government must prove that the defendant intended to defraud a bank and expose it to risk of loss in every prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 1344.

Lower court decision: United States v. Loughrin, 710 F.3d 1111 (10th Cir. 2013)

Docket

Scotusblog page

Are you defending someone charged with federal bank fraud under 18 U.S.C.

Read full article >

Freddie Lee Hall v. Florida, USSC No. 12-10882, cert. granted 10/21/13

Question presented:

Whether the Florida scheme for identifying mentally retarded defendants in capital cases violates Atkins v. Virginia.

Lower court opinion: Hall v. State, 109 So.3d 704 (Fla. 2012)

Docket

Scotusblog page

Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002), held that it is unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment to execute a person who is found to be mentally retarded.

Read full article >