On Point blog, page 11 of 16
Carlos Trevino v. Thaler, USSC No. 10189, Cert Granted 10/29/12
Question Presented (from cert pet):
In federal habeas proceedings, undersigned counsel raised for the first time a claim under Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (2003), that trial counsel were ineffective for failing to investigate the extraordinary mitigating evidence in Mr. Trevino’s life. The federal proceeding was stayed to allow exhaustion, but the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed Mr. Trevino’s Wiggins claim under state abuse of the writ rules.
McQuiggin v. Floyd Perkins, USSC No. 12-126, cert granted 10/29/12
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) contains a one-year statute of limitations for filing a habeas petition. In Holland v. Florida, 130 S. Ct. 2549, 2562 (2010), this Court affirmed that a habeas petitioner is entitled to equitable tolling of that one-year period “only if he shows: (1) that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way and prevented timely filing.”
Jonathan Edward Boyer v. Louisiana, USSC No. 11-9953, cert granted 10/5/12
Whether a state’s failure to fund counsel for an indigent defendant for five years, particularly where failure was the direct result of the prosecution’s choice to seek the death penalty, should be weighed against the state for speedy trial purposes?
Lower court opinion (State v. Boyer, 56 So.3d 1119 (La. App. 2011)
The issue appears to be whether inability to assign counsel is a “systemic breakdown”
Allen Ryan Alleyne v. U.S., USSC No. 11-9335, cert granted 10/5/12
Whether this Court’s decision in Harris v. United States, 536 U.S. 545 (2002), should be overruled.
Lower court opinion (U.S. v. Alleyne, CTA4 No. 11-4208, 12/15/11 (unpublished))
Alleyne was convicted by a jury of using or carrying a firearm during and in relation to a robbery,
Missouri v. Tyler G. McNeely, USSC No. 11-1425, cert granted 9/25/12
Whether a law enforcement officer may obtain a nonconsensual and warrantless blood sample from a drunk driver under the exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement based upon the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream.
Lower court opinion (State v. McNeely, 358 S.W.3d 65 (Mo. Banc 2012))
Does the evanescent quality of alcohol (or any metabolized substance,
Matthew Robert Descamps v. U.S., USSC No. 11-9540, cert granted 8/31/12
The California Burglary Statute Section 459 does not require as an element that a burglar “enter or remain unlawfully in a building”. The Ninth Circuit held that it could determine whether this “missing element” was shown to have been proven by applying the modified categorical approach.
The issues presented are as follows:
1- Whether the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in United States v.
Armarcion D. Henderson v. U.S., USSC No. 11-9307, cert granted 6/25/12
Rule 52(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure permits an appellate court to correct a trial court’s “plain error” despite the lack of an objection in the trial court. In Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 (1997), this Court held that, when the governing law on an issue is settled against the defendant at the time of trial but then changes in the defendant’s favor by the time of appeal,
Calvin Smith and John Raynor v. U.S., USSC No. 11-8976, cert granted 6/18/12
Whether withdrawing from a conspiracy prior to the statute of limitations period negates an element of a conspiracy charge such that, once a defendant meets his burden of production that he did so withdraw, the burden of persuasion rests with the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was a member of the conspiracy during the relevant period — a fundamental due process question that is the subject of a well-developed circuit split.
Lamar Evans v. Michigan, USSC No. 11-1327, cert granted 6/11/12
Does the Double Jeopardy Clause bar retrial after the trial judge erroneously holds a particular fact to be an element of the offense and then grants a midtrial directed verdict of acquittal because the prosecution failed to prove that fact?
Lower court opinion (491 Mich 1, 810 NW2d 535 (2012))
The QP efficiently sets up the issue,
Chunon L. Bailey v. U.S., USSC No. 11-770, cert granted 6/4/12
Question Presented (from cert petition):
Whether, pursuant to Michigan v. Summers, 452 U.S. 692 (1981), police officers may detain an individual incident to the execution of a search warrant when the individual has left the immediate vicinity of the premises before the warrant is executed.
Lower court decision (652 F.3d 197 2nd Cir 2011)
Police getting ready to execute a search warrant saw Bailey leave the residence,