On Point: 44. SCOTUS

Question Presented:

The U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual directs a court to “use the Guidelines Manual in effect on the date that the defendant is sentenced” unless “the court determines that use of the Guidelines Manual in effect on the date that the defendant is sentenced would violate the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution.” Eight courts of appeals have held that the Ex Post Facto Clause is violated where retroactive application of the Sentencing Guidelines creates a significant risk of a higher sentence.

Question Presented (from cert petition):

Does the Fourth Amendment allow the States to collect and analyze DNA from people arrested and charged with serious crimes?

Docket

Lower court opinion (King v. State, 425 Md. 550, 42 A.3d 549 (2012))

Scotusblog page

Under Maryland law, DNA Collection Act, Md. Code Ann., Pub. Safety §2-504,

Question Presented (from cert pet):

In federal habeas proceedings, undersigned counsel raised for the first time a claim under Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U.S. 510 (2003), that trial counsel were ineffective for failing to investigate the extraordinary mitigating evidence in Mr. Trevino’s life. The federal proceeding was stayed to allow exhaustion, but the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed Mr. Trevino’s Wiggins claim under state abuse of the writ rules.

Question Presented:

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) contains a one-year statute of limitations for filing a habeas petition. In Holland v. Florida, 130 S. Ct. 2549, 2562 (2010), this Court affirmed that a habeas petitioner is entitled to equitable tolling of that one-year period “only if he shows: (1) that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way and prevented timely filing.” 

Question Presented:

Whether a state’s failure to fund counsel for an indigent defendant for five years, particularly where failure was the direct result of the prosecution’s choice to seek the death penalty, should be weighed against the state for speedy trial purposes?

Docket

Lower court opinion (State v. Boyer, 56 So.3d 1119 (La. App. 2011)

Scotusblog page

The issue appears to be whether inability to assign counsel is a “systemic breakdown”

Question Presented:

Whether this Court’s decision in Harris v. United States, 536 U.S. 545 (2002), should be overruled.

Docket

Lower court opinion (U.S. v. Alleyne, CTA4 No. 11-4208, 12/15/11 (unpublished))

Scotusblog page

Alleyne was convicted by a jury of using or carrying a firearm during and in relation to a robbery,

Question Presented:

Whether a law enforcement officer may obtain a nonconsensual and warrantless blood sample from a drunk driver under the exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement based upon the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream.

Docket

Lower court opinion (State v. McNeely, 358 S.W.3d 65 (Mo. Banc 2012))

Scotusblog page

Does the evanescent quality of alcohol (or any metabolized substance,

Question Presented:

The California Burglary Statute Section 459 does not require as an element that a burglar “enter or remain unlawfully in a building”. The Ninth Circuit held that it could determine whether this “missing element” was shown to have been proven by applying the modified categorical approach.

The issues presented are as follows:

1- Whether the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in United States v.

Southern Union Company v. United States, USSC No. 11-94, 6/21/12, reversing 630 F.3d 17 (1st Cir 2010)

Criminal fines, no less than length of imprisonment, come within the “Apprendi” doctrine, such that a fine beyond the maximum statutory amount must be based on facts decided by the jury. Southern Union was tried for violating environmental laws carrying a fine of up to $50,000 per day in violation.

United States v. Alvarez, USSC No. 11-210 (6/28/12), affirming 638 F.3d 666 (9th Cir. 2011).

The Nation well knows that one of the costs of the First Amendment is that it protects the speech we detest as well as the speech we embrace.  Though few might find respondent’s statements anything but contemptible, his right to make those statements is protected by the Constitution’s guarantee of freedom of speech and expression.