On Point blog, page 15 of 16
Turner v. Price, USSC No. 10-10, cert granted 11/1/10
Decision below (S.C. supreme court)
Questions Presented (courtesy, Scotusblog):
1) Whether an indigent defendant has a constitutional right to appointed counsel at a civil contempt proceeding that results in his incarceration; and 2) whether the Court has jurisdiction to review the decision of the South Carolina Supreme Court.
Turner got 12 months in jail for civil contempt for willful failure to pay child support (remedial contempt,
Davis v. U.S., USSC No. 09-11328, cert granted 11/1/10
Decision below (CTA11)
Question Presented (from cert petition):
Whether the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies to a search authorized by precedent at the time of the search that is subsequently ruled unconstitutional.
Fall-out from the Court’s decision in Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S.
Camreta v. Greene, USSC No. 09-1454 / Alford v. Greene, No. 09-1478, cert granted 10/12/10
Consolidated cases:
Camreta
Decision Below (9th Cir)
Question Presented (from SCOTUSblog):
Whether the Fourth Amendment requires a warrant, a court order, parental consent, or exigent circumstances before law enforcement and child welfare officials may conduct a temporary seizure and interview at a public school of a child whom they reasonably suspect was being sexually abused.
Kentucky v. King, USSC No. 09-1272, cert. grant 9/29/10
Decision below (KY supreme court)
Question Presented (from USSC docket post):
Police officers entered an apartment building in hot pursuit of a person who sold crack cocaine to an undercover informant. They heard a door slam, but were not certain which of two apartments the trafficker fled into. A strong odor of marijuana emanated from one of the doors, which prompted the officers to believe the trafficker had fled into that apartment.
Bullcoming v. New Mexico, USSC No. 09-10876, cert grant 9/28/10
Decision Below (New Mexico supreme court)
Whether the Confrontation Clause permits the prosecution to introduce testimonial statements of a nontestifying forensic analyst through the in-court testimony of a supervisor or other person who did not perform or observe the laboratory analysis described in the statements.
Cert. Petition
Follow-up to Melendez-Diaz v.
Pepper v. U.S., USSC No. 09-6822, cert. grant 6/28/10
Decision below (CTA8)
There is a conflict among the United States Courts of Appeals regarding a defendant’s post-sentencing rehabilitation and whether it can support a downward sentencing variance under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
Whether a federal district judge can consider a defendant’s post-sentencing rehabilitation as a permissible factor supporting a sentencing variance under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) after Gall v.
Walker v. Martin, USSC No. 09-996, cert granted 6/21/10
Issue: Whether, in federal habeas corpus proceedings, a state law under which a prisoner may be barred from collaterally attacking his conviction when the prisoner “substantially delayed” filing his habeas petition is “inadequate” to support a procedural bar because (1) the federal court believes that the rule is vague and (2) the state failed to prove that its courts “consistently” exercised their discretion when applying the rule in other cases.
Docket: 09-996
- Opinion below (9th Circuit,
Cullen v. Pinholster, USSC No. 09-1088, cert granted, 6/14/10
Issues: (1) Whether it is appropriate under § 2254 for a federal court to conclude that a state court’s rejection of a claim was unreasonable in light of facts that an applicant could have but never alleged in state court; and (2) what standard of review is applicable to claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.
Docket: 09-1088
(Links,
Skinner v. Switzer, USSC No. 09-9000, cert granted 5/24/10
Question Presented:
May a convicted prisoner seeking access to biological evidence for DNA testing assert that claim in a claim in a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, or is such a claim cognizable only in a petition for writ of habeas corpus?
Docket: 09-9000
Scotusblog analysis notes,
Wall v. Kholi, USSC No. 09-868, cert grant 5/17/10
Question Presented:
Whether a state court sentence-reduction motion consisting of a plea for leniency constitutes an “application for State post-conviction or other collateral review,” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2), thus tolling the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act’s one-year limitations period for a state prisoner to file a federal habeas corpus petition.
Principal impetus for review seems to be (per usual) a split of authority,