On Point blog, page 16 of 25
SCOTUS: The military controls all of the property within the boundaries of a military installation
United States v. Apel, USSC 12-1038, 2/26/14
United States Supreme Court decision, vacating and remanding United States v. Apel, 676 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir. 2012).
Federal law makes it a crime to reenter a “military . . . installation” after having been ordered not to do so “by any officer or person in command.” 18 U.S.C. § 1382. A unanimous Court holds that the boundaries of the military installation covered by this prohibition include even a designated area for public protests and an easement for a public road through the installation:
Where a place with a defined boundary is under the administration of a military department,
SCOTUS: Police may conduct warrantless search of jointly-occupied dwelling if they first remove objecting occupant and then obtain co-occupant’s consent
Fernandez v. California, USSC 12-7822, 2/25/14, affirming People v. Fernandez, 145 Cal Rptr.3rd 51 (Cal Ct. App. 2012).
Docket here; SCOTUSblog analysis of decision here; Orin Kerr’s “Five Thoughts on Fernandez” here; On Point analysis of cert grant here
Police officers may, without a warrant, search a jointly occupied premises if one of the occupants consents to the search.
SCOTUS: No right to contest grand jury’s probable cause determination when challenging pre-trial freeze of assets
Kaley v. United States, USSC 12-464, 2/25/14
United States Supreme Court decision, affirming United States v. Kaley, 677 F.3d 1316 (11th Cir. 2012)
In a 6-to-3 decision, the Supreme Court holds that when a post-indictment, ex parte restraining order under 18 U.S.C. § 853(e) freezes assets that are potentially subject to forfeiture but which the defendant needs to retain counsel,
SCOTUS: Trial lawyer’s failure to seek funds to hire better expert, based on mistaken belief about funding cap, amounts to deficient performance
Anthony Ray Hinton v. Alabama, USSC 13-6440, 2/24/14 (per curiam), vacating Hinton v. State, __So. 3d__, 2013WL 598122 (2/15/13).
Docket here.
Trial lawyers, listen up. Check your expert witness funding cap before settling for an “expert” you know is sub par.
In 1985, managers of 3 different restaurants were robbed and shot—each with two .38 caliber bullets. The first two managers died.
SCOTUS unanimously reverses 8th Circuit’s intepretation of causation required by mandatory minimum provision of Controlled Substances Act
Marcus Burrage v. United States, USSC 12-7515, 1/27/14, reversing United States v. Burrage, 687 F.3d 1015 (8th Cir. 2012).
Docket here. SCOTUSblog analysis here.
The Uniform Controlled Substances Act imposes a 20-year mandatory minimum sentence on a defendant who unlawfully distributes a Schedule I or II drug, when “death or serious bodily injury results from the use of such substance.”
When a defendant asserts a “mental status” defense, Fifth Amendment allows state to use court-ordered psych exams in rebuttal
Kansas v. Cheever, USSC No. 12-609, 12/11/13
United States Supreme Court decision, reversing Kansas v. Cheever, 284 P.3d 1007 (Kan. 2012).
The Supreme Court unanimously holds that “where a defense expert who has examined the defendant testifies that the defendant lacked the requisite mental state to commit a crime, the prosecution may offer evidence from a court-ordered psychological examination for the limited purpose of rebutting the defendant’s evidence.”
U.S. Supreme Court: Federal circuit court failed to give required “double deference” under AEDPA to state court’s resolution of ineffective assitance of counsel claim
Burt v. Titlow, USSC No. 12-414, 11/5/13
United States Supreme Court decision, reversing Titlow v. Burt, 680 F.3d 577 (6th Cir. 2012)
When a state prisoner asks a federal court to set aside a sentence due to ineffective assistance of counsel during plea bargaining, our cases require that the federal court use a “‘doubly deferential’” standard of review that gives both the state court and the defense attorney the benefit of the doubt.
SCOTUS: ICWA doesn’t apply to Indian father who abandons child prior to birth
Adoptive Couple v. Baby Birl, USSC No. 12-399, reversing and remanding 298 S.C. 625, 731 S.E.2d 550 (2012).
SCOTUSblog coverage here.
TPR lawyers, this one is for you.
The dissent says the casual reader of the majority opinion could be forgiven for thinking that Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 points to only one sensible result. See what you think.
Unwed mom became pregnant with the child of dad,
U.S. Supreme Court: Investment recommendation is not “obtainable property” for purposes of Hobbs Act prosecution
Giridhar C. Sekhar v. United States, USSC No. 12-357, 6/26/13
United States Supreme Court decision, reversing U.S. v. Sekhar, 683 F.3d 436 (2nd Cir. 2012)
Attempting to compel a person to recommend that his employer approve an investment does not constitute “the obtaining of property from another” for purposes of a prosecution under the Hobbs Act, 18 U. S. C. §1951(a).
Investments for the New York government employees pension fund are chosen by the State Comptroller.
Federal sex offender registration law applies to person discharged from his sentence before passage of law
United States v. Anthony James Kebodeaux, USSC No. 12-418, 6/24/13
United States Supreme Court decision, reversing U.S. v. Kebodeaux, 687 F.3d 232 (5th Cir. 2012)
The Court holds that the federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) applies to a person despite the fact he was convicted (at a court martial), and completed service of his sentence, before passage of the Act.