On Point blog, page 35 of 40
Barion Perry v. New Hampshire, USSC No. 10-8974, cert granted 5/31/11
Decision below: New Hampshire Supreme Court, No. 2009-0590, 11/18/2010 (summary order); Perry’s brief below; New Hampshire’s brief below
When a witness in a criminal case identifies a suspect out-of-court, under suggestive circumstances which give rise to a substantial likelihood of later misidentification, due process requires the trial judge to determine whether the out-ofcourt identification and any subsequent in-court identification are reliable before either may be admitted into evidence.
Prison Litigation Reform Act – Prison Overcrowding Oversight
Brown v. Plata, USSC No. 09-1233, 5/23/11
Remedial injunction, issued by a federal court pursuant to the PLRA, ordering California to reduce its prison population on account of deficiencies in medical care caused by overcrowding, upheld.
Lengthy, 5-4 opinion (91 pp. pdf file) on something (“conditions of confinement”) outside the boundaries of SPD representation: why should you be interested? For one thing, as On Point readership surveys have demonstrated time and again over the years,
Warrantless Entry – Exigent Circumstances Exception not Circumscribed by Whether “Police-Created”
Kentucky v. Hollis Deshaun King, USSC No. 09-1272, 5/16/11, reversing, King v. Commonwealth, 302 S.W.3d 649 (2010)
The exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement (here, imminent destruction of evidence) isn’t circumscribed by whether the exigency was “police-created.”
It is well established that “exigent circumstances,” including the need to prevent the destruction of evidence, permit police officers to conduct an otherwise permissible search without first obtaining a warrant.
Habeas – Death Penalty Phase Instructions
Bobby v. Harry Mitts, USSC No. 10-1000, 5/2/11 (per curiam)
The death penalty may not be imposed when the jury isn’t permitted to consider a verdict of guilt on a lesser included, non-capital offense supported by the evidence, Beck v. Alabama, 447 U.S. 625 (1980). As the Court now notes:
such a scheme intolerably enhances the irrelevant considerations into the factfinding process, diverting the jury’s attention from the central issue of whether the State has satisfied its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of a capital crime.” Id.,
Judulang v. Holder, USSC No. 10-694, cert granted 4/19/11
Decision below (9th Cir, unpublished)
For more than 25 years, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) held that a legal permanent resident (LPR) who is deportable due to a criminal conviction could seek a discretionary waiver of removal under Section 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. §1182(c), provided that the conviction also would have constituted a waivable basis for exclusion.
Habeas – Evidentiary Hearing – Federal Review Limited to State Court Record
Cullen v. Scott Lynn Pinholster, USSC No. 09-1088, 4/4/11
We first consider the scope of the record for a §2254(d)(1) inquiry. The State argues that review is limited to the record that was before the state court that adjudicated the claim on the merits. Pinholster contends that evidence presented to the federal habeas court may also be considered. We agree with the State.
…
We now hold that review under §2254(d)(1) is limited to the record that was before the state court that adjudicated the claim on the merits.
Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of the County of Burlington, USSC NO. 10-945, Cert Granted 4/4/11
Decision below (621 F.3d 296 (3rd Cir 2010))
Whether the Fourth Amendment permits a jail to conduct a suspicionless strip search of every individual arrested for any minor offense no matter what the circumstances.
Caselaw in this Circuit has long rejected suspicionless jail strip searches for minor offenses. Mary Beth G.
Greene v. Fisher, USSC No. 10-637, cert granted 4/4/11
Decision below (3rd Cir No. 07-2163, 5/28/10)
Question Presented (by Scotusblog):
For purposes of adjudicating a state prisoner’s petition for federal habeas relief, what is the temporal cutoff for whether a decision from this Court qualifies as “clearly established Federal law” under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), as amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996?
Here’s the pitch Greene successfully made:
This case presents a fundamental question of federal habeas procedure in the post-AEDPA world: What is the temporal cutoff for when decisions from this Court count as “clearly established Federal law”?
Maples v. Thomas, USSC No. 10-63, Cert Granted 3/21/11
Decision below (11th Cir No. 07-15187, 10/26/09)
Question Presented (by Scotusblog):
Whether the Eleventh Circuit properly held that there was no “cause” to excuse any procedural default where petitioner was blameless for the default, the state’s own conduct contributed to the default, and petitioner’s attorneys of record were no longer functioning as his agents at the time of any default.
After Maples lost his direct appeal in (Alabama) state court,
Habeas Review, Batson Issue: Must Give Deference to State Court Determination
Felkner v. Steven Frank Jackson, USSC No. 10-797, 3/31/11
On habeas review under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the court of appeals failed to give sufficient deference to the state court determination that the prosecutor had race-neutral reasons for striking 2 of 3 black prospective jurors.
The prosecutor struck one juror because she had an MSW, and the prosecutor didn’t like having social workers on the jury;