On Point: A. Cert Grants

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.

Question presented:

Whether a defendant-who has fraudulently obtained a loan and thus owes restitution for the loan under 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(b)(1)(B) returns “any part” of the loan money by giving the lenders the collateral that secures the money?

Lower court opinion: United States v. Robers, 698 F.3d 937 (7th Cir. 2012)

Docket

Scotusblog page

In this case the Court will resolve a circuit split about the calculation of restitution under 18 U.S.C.

Questions presented:

1.  Is a gun buyer’s intent to sell a firearm to another lawful buyer in the future a fact “material to the lawfulness of the sale” of the firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6)?

2.  Is a gun buyer’s intent to sell a firearm to another lawful buyer in the future a piece of information “required … to be kept” by a federally licensed firearm dealer under § 924(a)(I)(A).

Question presented:

Does the Fourth Amendment require an officer who receives an anonymous tip regarding a drunken or reckless driver to corroborate dangerous driving before stopping the vehicle?

Lower court opinion: People v. Lorenzo Prado Navarette, et al., No. A132353, 2012 WL 4842651 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 12, 2013) (unpublished)

Docket

Scotusblog page

This is a very significant Fourth Amendment case that could change the law in Wisconsin by limiting State v.

Question presented:

Whether [Castleman’s] Tennessee conviction for misdemeanor domestic assault by intentionally or knowingly causing bodily injury to the mother of his child qualifies as a conviction for a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9).

Lower court opinion: United States v. James Alvin Castleman, 695 F.3d 582 (6th Cir. 2012)

Docket

Scotusblog page

This case will be important to federal practitioners who handle prosecutions under § 18 U.S.C.

Question presented:

What, if any, causal relationship or nexus between the defendant’s conduct and the victim’s harm or damages must the government or the victim establish in order to recover restitution under 18 U.S.C. § 2259?

Lower court opinion: In re: Amy Unknown: United States v. Paroline, 701 F.3d 749 (5th Cir. 2012)

Docket

Scotusblog page

This is an important case for anyone handling federal possession of child pornography cases,

Questions presented:

1. Whether the Sixth Circuit violated 28 U.S.C. §2254(d)(1) by granting habeas relief on the trial court’s failure to provide a no adverse inference instruction even though this Court has not “clearly established” that such an instruction is required in a capital penalty phase when a non-testifying defendant has pled guilty to the crimes and aggravating circumstances.

2. Whether the Sixth Circuit violated the harmless error standard in Brecht v.

Questions presented:

1.     Massachusetts has a law that makes it a crime for speakers other than clinic employees or agents acting within the scope of employment to “enter or remain on a public way or sidewalk” within 35 feet of an entrance, exit, or driveway of  “a reproductive health care facility.” Did the First Circuit err in upholding this law under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, on its face and as applied to petitioners?

Question presented:

Whether the offense of aiding and abetting the use of a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A) and 2, requires proof of (i) intentional facilitation or encouragement of the use of the firearm, as held by the First, Second, Third, Fifth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits, or (ii) simple knowledge that the principal used a firearm during a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime in which the defendant also participated,

Question presented:

Proper interpretation of Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103, 126 S.Ct. 1515, 164 L.Ed.2d 208 (2006), specifically whether a defendant must be personally present and objecting when police officers ask a co-tenant for consent to conduct a warrantless search or whether a defendant’s previously-stated objection, while physically present, to a warrantless search is a continuing assertion of 4th Amendment rights which cannot be overridden by a co-tenant.