On Point: 44. SCOTUS

Missouri v. McNeely, USSC No. 11-1425, 4/17/13

United States Supreme Court decision, affirming State v. McNeely, 358 S.W.3d 65 (Mo. 2012)

In a decision that works a major change in Wisconsin law governing nonconsensual, warrantless blood draws in OWI cases, the U.S. Supreme Court holds the evanescent quality of alcohol in a suspect’s bloodstream does not in and of itself create an exigent circumstance:

The question presented here is whether the natural metabolization of alcohol in the bloodstream presents a per se exigency that justifies an exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement for nonconsensual blood testing in all drunk-driving cases.

Florida v. Jardines, USSC No. 11-564, 3/26/13

United States Supreme Court decision, affirming Jardines v. State, 73 So. 3d 34 (2011)

In this 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court holds that using a drug-sniffing dog on a homeowner’s front porch to investigate the contents of the home is a “search” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. Because the search was conducted without probable cause,

Johnson v. Williams, USSC No. 11-465, 2/20/13

United States Supreme Court decision, reversing and remanding Williams v. Cavazos, 646 F.3d 626 (9th Cir. 2011)

When a defendant convicted in state court raises a federal claim and a state court rules against the defendant in an opinion that addresses some issues but does not expressly address the federal claim in question, the federal habeas court must presume (subject to rebuttal) that the federal claim was adjudicated on the merits:

….AEDPA sharply limits the circumstances in which a federal court may issue a writ of habeas corpus to a state prisoner whose claim was “adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings.” 28 U.

Evans v. Michigan, USSC No. 11-1327, 2/20/13

United States Supreme Court decision, reversing People v. Evans, 491 Mich. 1, 810 N.W.2d 535 (2012)

A trial judge entered a directed verdict of acquittal in favor of Evans after concluding the state had not provided sufficient evidence of a particular element of the offense. A state appellate court later ruled that the unproven “element” was not actually an element at all and thus ordered a retrial.

Florida v. Harris, USSC No. 11-817, 2/19/13

United States Supreme Court decision, overruling Harris v. Florida, 71 So. 3d 756 (2011)

In a unanimous decision addressing the question of when a drug-sniffing dog’s alert constitutes probable cause, the Supreme Court overturned the Florida Supreme Court’s requirement that the state produce records of the dog’s reliability in the field in order to support probable cause.

Bailey v. United States, USSC No. 11-770, 2/19/13

United States Supreme Court decision, reversing and remanding United States v. Bailey, 652 F.3d 197 (2d Cir. 2011)

The Court holds it was not reasonable for police to seize an individual incident to the search of the individual’s residence when the individual was not in the “immediate vicinity” of the place being searched. The holding is an elaboration of the rule from Michigan v.

Question presented:

When a criminal defendant affirmatively introduces expert testimony that he lacked the requisite mental state to commit capital murder of a law enforcement officer due to the alleged temporary and long-term effects of the defendant’s methamphetamine use, does the State violate the defendant’s Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination by rebutting the defendant’s mental state defense with evidence from a court-ordered mental evaluation of the defendant?

Lower court decision: Kansas v.

Questions Presented:

This case presents three questions involving· AEDPA (the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996), and Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1376 (2012), this Court’s recent decision expanding ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims to include rejected plea offers:

1. Whether the Sixth Circuit failed to give appropriate deference to a Michigan state court under AEDPA in holding that defense counsel was constitutionally ineffective for allowing Respondent to maintain his claim of innocence.

Questions presented:

1. Whether the Michigan Supreme Court’s recognition that a state statute abolished the long-maligned diminished-capacity defense was an “unexpected and indefensible” change in a common-law doctrine of criminal law under this Court’s retroactivity jurisprudence. See Rogers v. Tennessee, 532 U.S. 451 (2001).

2. Whether the Michigan Court of Appeals’ retroactive application of the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision was “so lacking in justification that there was an error well understood and comprehended in existing law beyond any possibility for fairminded disagreement”

Questions Presented:

1. Do the Constitution’s structural limits on federal authority impose any constraints on the scope of Congress’ authority to enact legislation to implement a valid treaty, at least in circumstances where the federal statute, as applied, goes far beyond the scope of the treaty, intrudes on traditional state prerogatives, and is concededly unnecessary to satisfy the government’s treaty obligations?

2. Can the provisions of the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act,