On Point blog, page 14 of 16
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.
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.
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,
Lafler v. Anthony Cooper, USSC No. 10-209, Cert. Granted 1/7/11
Decision below (CTA6)
Anthony Cooper faced assault with intent to murder charges. His counsel advised him to reject a plea offer based on a misunderstanding of Michigan law. Cooper rejected the offer, and he was convicted as charged. Cooper does not assert that any error occurred at the trial. On habeas review, the Sixth Circuit found that because there is a reasonable probability that Cooper would have accepted the plea offer had he been adequately advised,
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:
…