On Point blog, page 26 of 40
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United States Supreme Court decision, reversing United States v. Descamps, No. 08-30013 (9th Cir. Jan. 10, 2012) (unpublished)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”
U.S. Supreme Court: Ex Post Facto Clause limits application of new federal sentencing guidelines
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,
U.S. Supreme Court upholds collection of DNA from persons arrested for “serious” crimes
Maryland v. King, USSC No. 12-207, 6/3/13
United States Supreme Court decision, reversing King v. State, 425 Md. 550, 42 A.3d 549 (2012)
In a decision validating the collection of DNA from at least some persons before they are even convicted of a crime, a divided Supreme Court has concluded that when officers make an arrest supported by probable cause for a “serious”
U.S. Supreme Court holds that a showing of “actual innocence” allows consideration of merits of habeas petition filed after expiration of time limit
McQuiggin v. Floyd Perkins, USSC No. 12-126, 5/28/13
United States Supreme Court decision, vacating and remanding Perkins v. McQuiggin, 670 F.3d 665 (6th Cir. 2012)
In Schlup v. Delo, 513 U. S. 298 (1995), and House v. Bell, 547 U. S. 518 (2006), the Court held that a convincing showing of “actual innocence” enabled habeas petitioners to overcome a procedural bar to consideration of the merits of their constitutional claims.
U.S. Supreme Court: habeas petitioner’s procedural default may be excused if state rules do not offer defendants meaningful opportunity to present IAC claim on direct appeal
Carlos Trevino v. Thaler, USSC No. 11-10189, 5/28/13
United States Supreme Court decision, vacating and remanding 449 Fed. Appx. 145 (5th Cir. Nov. 14, 2011)
Last term in Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S. Ct. 1309 (2012), a case arising out of Arizona, the Court held that where a state’s rules of appellate procedure allowed a state prisoner to raise an ineffective assistance of trial counsel claim only on collateral review,