On Point: 44. SCOTUS

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?

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,

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.

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.

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United States Supreme Court decision, reversing United States v. Descamps, No. 08-30013 (9th Cir. Jan. 10, 2012) (unpublished)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,

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.

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.

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”

Marvin Peugh v. United States, USSC No. 12-62, 6/10/13

United States Supreme Court decision, reversing United States v. Peugh, 675 F.3d 736 (7th Cir. 2012)

Resolving a split between federal circuit courts, the Supreme Court holds that a sentencing court violates the Ex Post Facto Clause by using the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines in effect at the time of sentencing instead of the Guidelines in effect at the time of the offense,