On Point blog, page 13 of 16
Patrick Wood v. Milyard, USSC No. 10-9995, cert granted 9/27/11
Decision below: Wood v. Milyard, 10th Cir, 11/26/10
Questions Presented (by the Court):
1) Does an appellate court have the authority to raise sua sponte a 28 U.S.C. §2244(d) statute of limitations defense?
2) Does the State’s declaration before the district court that it “will not challenge, but [is] not conceding, the timeliness of Wood’s habeas petition,” amount to a deliberate waiver of any statute of limitations defense the State may have had?
Sandy Williams v. Illinois, USSC No. 10-8505, cert granted 6/28/11
Decision below: People v. Williams, 238 Ill. 2d 125 (Ill. S. Ct. No. 107550)
Question Presented (by the Court):
Whether a state rule of evidence allowing an expert witness to testify about the results of DNA testing performed by non-testifying analysts, where the defendant has no opportunity to confront the actual analysts, violates the Confrontation Clause.
U.S. v. Antoine Jones, USSC No. 10-1259, cert granted 6/27/11
Decision below: United States v. Maynard, 615 F.3d 544 (D.C. Cir. 2010), reh’g denied sub nom. United States v. Jones, 625 F.3d 766 (D.C. Cir. 2010)
Questions Presented:
1. [from Petition:] Whether the warrantless use of a tracking device on petitioner’s vehicle to monitor its movements on public streets violated the Fourth Amendment.
Messerschmidt v. Millender, USC No. 10-704, cert granted 6/27/11
Decision below: Millender v. County of Los Angeles, 620 F. 3d 1016 (9th Cir 2010). reversing panel decision, 564 F.3d 1143
Questions Presented (from Petition):
This Court has held that police officers who procure and execute warrants later determined invalid are entitled to qualified immunity, and evidence obtained should not be suppressed, so long as the warrant is not “so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable.” United States v.
Juan Smith v. Louisiana, USSC No. 10-8145, cert granted 6/13/11
Decision below: State ex rel. Smith v. Cain, 992 So. 2d 928, 2008 La. LEXIS 1772 (La., 2008), writ denied State v. Smith, 2010 La. LEXIS 2202 (La., Sept. 24, 2010)
Questions Presented (from SCOTUS docket page):
In this Louisiana criminal case, the state trial court, the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal, and the Louisiana Supreme Court, without making any factual findings, or providing any reasons for their rulings,
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.