On Point: 44. SCOTUS

Wetzel v. John Lambert, USSC No. 11-38, 2/21/12, vacating and remanding 633 F.3d 126 (3rd Cir. 2011)

Lambert claimed that state prosecutors withheld exculpatory information: a “police activity sheet” that arguably suggested someone other than, or perhaps in addition to, himself committed the offense (robbery and murder); and that could have been used to impeach the principal state’s witness. The state (Pennsylvania) court deemed the information too ambiguous to show that someone else had committed the robbery,

Howes v. Randall Lee Fields, USSC No. 10-680, 2/21/12, reversing 617 F.3d 813 (6th Cir 2010); arguably abrogating, State v. Tonnie D. Armstrong, 223 Wis.2d 331, 588 N.W.2d 606 (1999)

Habeas – Review, Generally 

Under AEDPA, a federal court may grant a state prisoner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus if the state-court adjudication pursuant to which the prisoner is held “resulted in a decision that was contrary to,

U.S. v. Antoine Jones, USSC No. 10-1259, 1/23/12, affirming United States v. Maynard, 615 F.3d 544 (D.C. Cir. 2010), reh’g denied sub nom. United States v. Jones, 625 F.3d 766 (D.C. Cir. 2010); effectively overruling State v. Sveum, 2009 WI App 81, ¶8

The Fourth Amendment provides in relevant part that “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons,

Cory R. Maples v. Thomas, USSC No. 10-63, 1/18/12, reversing 586 F.3d 879 (11th Cir. 2009)

On “the uncommon facts presented here,” the Court finds that cause existed to excuse on federal habeas review Maples’ procedural default, namely his failure to file a timely appeal of his state (Alabama) postconviction petition.

The sole question this Court has taken up for review is whether,

Question Presented: 

Whether a habeas petitioner’s claim has been “adjudicated on the merits” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) where the state court denied relief in an explained decision but did not expressly acknowledge a federal-law basis for the claim.

Scotusblog page

The Court expressly limited the grant to the procedural issue recited above, even though the 9th granted habeas relief relating to dismissal of a juror mid-deliberations.

Rafel Arriaza Gonzalez v. Thaler, USSC No. 10-895, 1/10/12, affirming 623 F. 3d 222 (5th Cir. 2010)

Habeas Procedure – Certificate of Appealability, Defects and Jurisdiction 

… 28 U. S. C. §2253(c), provides that a habeas petitioner must obtain a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal a federal district court’s final order in a habeas proceeding. §2253(c)(1). The COA may issue only if the petitioner has made a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,”

Juan Smith v. Cain, USSC No. 10-8145, 1/10/12

Statements by the sole eyewitness, who identified Smith at trial as one of the perpetrators, that in fact he couldn’t see the faces of the perpetrators were “material” to determination of Smith’s guilt. Therefore, the state’s failure to disclose these statements before trial violated Smith’s due process right to exculpatory evidence.

Under Brady, the State violates a defendant’s right to due process if it withholds evidence that is favorable to the defense and material to the defendant’s guilt or punishment.

Barion Perry v. New Hampshire, USSC No. 10-8974, 1/11/12, affirming State v. Perry (N.H. sup. ct. 11/18/10)

For purposes of due process, a pretrial identification isn’t suppressible unless the product of improper law enforcement activity.

We have not extended pretrial screening for reliability to cases in which the suggestive circumstances were not arranged by law enforcement officers. Petitioner requests that we do so because of the grave risk that mistaken identification will yield a miscarriage of justice.1 Our decisions,

Question Presented: 

Whether a dog sniff at the front door of a suspected grow house by a trained narcotics detection dog is a Fourth Amendment search requiring probable cause?

Scotusblog Page

Florida supreme court decision, State v. Jardines (4/14/11)

Coverage by Lyle Denniston, Orin Kerr (“fun stuff for Fourth Amendment nerds”), Kent Scheidegger (“This is solid police work”), 

Hardy v. Irving L. Cross, USSC No. 11-74, 12/12/11, reversing Cross v. Hardy, 7th Cir No. 09-1666

The Seventh Circuit grant of habeas relief, on the ground “the state failed to demonstrate that it employed good faith efforts to locate the complainant” before declaring her “unavailable” and allowing her prior testimony to be read to the jury, is reversed:

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of1996 (AEDPA),