On Point blog, page 17 of 25
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.
U.S. Supreme Court reaffirms use of “categorical approach” in Armed Career Criminal Act cases
Matthew Robert Descamps v. United States, USSC No. 11-9540, 6/20/13
United States Supreme Court decision, reversing United States v. Descamps, No. 08-30013 (9th Cir. Jan. 10, 2012) (unpublished)
The Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA or Act), 18 U. S. C. §924(e), increases the sentences of certain federal defendants who have three prior convictions “for a violent felony,” including “burglary, arson, or extortion.” To determine whether a past conviction is for one of those crimes,
U.S. Supreme Court again holds remaining silent is not enough to invoke the right to remain silent
Genovevo Salinas v. Texas, USSC No. 12-246, 6/17/13
United States Supreme Court decision, affirming Salinas v. State, 369 S.W.2d 176 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012)
Consistent with the rule applied to a defendant’s silence after being informed of his Miranda rights, the Supreme Court holds that a suspect who is being questioned before he was arrested and read Miranda does not invoke his right against self-incrimination by merely staying quiet in response to police questioning.
U.S. Supreme Court holds that a fact that increases the minimum mandatory sentence for a crime must be submitted to the jury
Allen Ryan Alleyne v. United States, USSC No. 11-9335, 6/17/13
United States Supreme Court decision, vacating and remanding United States v. Alleyne, No. 11-4208 (4th Cir. Dec. 15, 2011)
Since Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), a defendant has had the right to demand the jury find beyond a reasonable doubt any fact that increases the maximum sentence for a crime.
U.S. Supreme Court: Federal judge’s participation in plea discussions is subject to prejudice determination
United States. v. Anthony Davila, USSC No. 12-167, 6/13/13
United States Supreme Court decision, reversing United States v. Davila, 664 F.3d 1355 (11th Cir. 2011) (per curiam)
Rule 11(c)(1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that parties may discuss and reach a plea agreement, but that the court “must not participate in these discussions.” In this case there is not dispute that a Magistrate Judge violated Rule 11(c)(1) by improperly participating in plea discussions by engaging in “repeated exhortations”