On Point

Collins v. Virginia, USSC No. 16-1027, cert granted 9/28/17; lower court opinion; USSC docket; SCOTUSblog page

Question presented: Whether the Fourth Amendment’s automobile exception permits a police officer, uninvited and without a warrant, to enter private property, approach a house and search a vehicle parked a few feet from the house.

Byrd v. United States, USSC No. 2016-1371, cert granted 9/28/17; 3rd Circuit’s opinion; docket; SCOTUSblog page
Question presented:

A police officer may not conduct a suspicionless and warrantless search of a car if the driver has a reasonable expectation of privacy in the car–i.e., an expectation of privacy that society accepts as reasonable. Does a driver have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a rental car when he has the renter’s permission to drive the car but is not listed as an authorized driver on the rental agreement.

McCoy v. Louisiana, USSC No. 16-8255, cert granted 9/28/17

Question presented:

Is it unconstitutional for defense counsel to concede an accused’s guilt over the accused’s express objection?

City of Hays, Kansas v. Vogt, USSC No. 16-1495, cert granted 9/28/17

Question presented:

Whether the Fifth Amendment is violated when statements are used at a probable cause hearing but not at a criminal trial.

Rosales-Mireles v. United States, USSC No. 16-9493, cert granted 9/28/17

Question presented:

In United States v. Olano, this Court held that, under the fourth prong of plain error review, “[t]he Court of Appeals should correct a plain forfeited error affecting substantial rights if the error ‘seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” 507 U.S. 725, 736 (1993). To meet that standard, is it necessary, as the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals required, that the error be one that “would shock the conscience of the common man, serve as a powerful indictment against our system of justice, or seriously call into question the competence or integrity of the district judge?”

Read this new opinion from the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.  It reversed a trial court decision to strike a potential juror for cause because she expressed a belief that the criminal justice system is biased against black men. According to the court of appeals, our justice system is biased, and jurors having this belief will likely try harder to be fair. Consider the possibilities for your next voir dire.

Know a pro se litigant in need of good, free lawyer? You might refer them to Judge Richard Posner. Seriously. Click here for more details.

State v. Adam M. Zamora, 2016AP1923-CR, District 2, 9/27/17 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

The circuit court properly exercised its discretion in determining that an expert witness called to testify about child sexual assault victim reporting behaviors met the so-called Daubert standard codified in § 907.02(1).

On September 27, 2017, the court of appeals ordered the publication of the following criminal law related decisions:

State v. Julio Cesar Pacheco Arias, 2017AP228-CR, 9/26/17, District 1 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

In 2015, Pacheco-Arias was charged with 2 separate OWI offenses just weeks apart. Because he had 2 prior OWI convictions, both of the 2015 OWIs were charged as a misdemeanor OWI-3rd offenses. Under the law in effect in 2015, if the earlier charge resulted in a conviction, the later charge would, by operation of law, become a felony OWI offense. See §346.63(1)(a), §346.65(2)(am)3 (2015-2016).  As you might guess, the defendant wanted the later charge resolved first in order to avoid a felony conviction.