On Point blog, page 34 of 40
Patrick Wood v. Milyard, USSC No. 10-9995, cert granted 9/27/11
Decision below: Wood v. Milyard, 10th Cir, 11/26/10
Questions Presented (by the Court):
1) Does an appellate court have the authority to raise sua sponte a 28 U.S.C. §2244(d) statute of limitations defense?
2) Does the State’s declaration before the district court that it “will not challenge, but [is] not conceding, the timeliness of Wood’s habeas petition,” amount to a deliberate waiver of any statute of limitations defense the State may have had?
Sandy Williams v. Illinois, USSC No. 10-8505, cert granted 6/28/11
Decision below: People v. Williams, 238 Ill. 2d 125 (Ill. S. Ct. No. 107550)
Question Presented (by the Court):
Whether a state rule of evidence allowing an expert witness to testify about the results of DNA testing performed by non-testifying analysts, where the defendant has no opportunity to confront the actual analysts, violates the Confrontation Clause.
U.S. v. Antoine Jones, USSC No. 10-1259, cert granted 6/27/11
Decision below: 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)
Questions Presented:
1. [from Petition:] Whether the warrantless use of a tracking device on petitioner’s vehicle to monitor its movements on public streets violated the Fourth Amendment.
Messerschmidt v. Millender, USC No. 10-704, cert granted 6/27/11
Decision below: Millender v. County of Los Angeles, 620 F. 3d 1016 (9th Cir 2010). reversing panel decision, 564 F.3d 1143
Questions Presented (from Petition):
This Court has held that police officers who procure and execute warrants later determined invalid are entitled to qualified immunity, and evidence obtained should not be suppressed, so long as the warrant is not “so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable.” United States v.
Exclusionary Rule: Good-Faith Reliance on Judicial Precedence
Willie Gene Davis v. U.S., USSC No. 09-11328, 6/16/11
… The question here is whether to apply this sanction when the police conduct a search in compliance with binding precedent that is later overruled. Because suppression would do nothing to deter police misconduct in these circumstances, and because it would come at a high cost to both the truth and the public safety, we hold that searches conducted in objectively reasonable reliance on binding appellate precedent are not subject to the exclusionary rule.
Confrontation – Lab Report Certification
Donald Bullcoming v. New Mexico, USSC No. 09-10876, 6/23/11
The question presented is whether the Confrontation Clause permits the prosecution to introduce a forensic laboratory report containing a testimonial certification—made for the purpose of proving a particular fact—through the in-court testimony of a scientist who did not sign the certification or perform or observe the test reported in the certification. We hold that surrogate testimony of that order does not meet the constitutional requirement.
Appellate Procedure, Mootness Doctrine: Repetition-Review Doctrine; Right to Counsel, Civil Proceeding: Doesn’t Automatically Attach, Even Where Incarcerative Consequence
Michael D. Turner v. Rogers, USSC No. 10-10, 6/20/11
Appellate Procedure – Mootness Doctrine
Turner’s appeal – he challenges denial of appointed counsel in a civil contempt proceeding but has fully served the resultant 12-month sentence – isn’t moot:
The short, conclusive answer to respondents’ mootness claim, however, is that this case is not moot because it falls within a special category of disputes that are “capable of repetition” while “evading review.” Southern Pacific Terminal Co.
Miranda warnings, Juvenile Suspect: Age of Child Relevant to Custody Analysis
J.D.B. v. North Carolina, USSC No. 09-11101, 6/16/11, reversing 363 N. C. 664, 686 S. E. 2d 135
This case presents the question whether the age of a child subjected to police questioning is relevant to the custody analysis of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966) . It is beyond dispute that children will often feel bound to submit to police questioning when an adult in the same circumstances would feel free to leave.
Juan Smith v. Louisiana, USSC No. 10-8145, cert granted 6/13/11
Decision below: State ex rel. Smith v. Cain, 992 So. 2d 928, 2008 La. LEXIS 1772 (La., 2008), writ denied State v. Smith, 2010 La. LEXIS 2202 (La., Sept. 24, 2010)
Questions Presented (from SCOTUS docket page):
In this Louisiana criminal case, the state trial court, the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal, and the Louisiana Supreme Court, without making any factual findings, or providing any reasons for their rulings,
Rafael Arriaza Gonzalez v. Thaler, USSC No. 10-895, cert granted 6/13/11
Decision below: 623 F. 3d 222 (5th Cir. 2010)
Questions Presented (from SCOTUS docket page):
1. WAS THERE JURISDICTION TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY UNDER 28 U.S.C. §2253(C) AND TO ADJUDICATE PETITIONER’S APPEAL?
2. WAS THE APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS OUT OF TIME UNDER 28 U.S.C. §2244(D)(1) DUE TO “THE DATE ON WHICH THE JUDGMENT BECAME FINAL BY THE CONCLUSION OF DIRECT REVIEW OR THE EXPIRATION OF THE TIME FOR SEEKING SUCH REVIEW”?