Recently in Criminal Law Category

In capital habeas proceedings, a circuit court's order requiring the petition to be granted is reversed where petitioner did not establish that defense counsel prejudiced petitioner by providing him ineffective assistance at the penalty phase of his trial, because petitioner failed to show a reasonable probability that the jury would have rejected a capital sentence after it weighed the entire body of mitigating evidence against the entire body of aggravating evidence.

Read Wong v. Belmontes, No. 08-1263

Appellate Information

Filed November 16, 2009

Judges

Per Curiam

Concurrence by Justice Stevens

In a capital habeas matter, a circuit court of appeals' grant of the petition on the basis that petitioner's lawyers performed deficiently in investigating and presenting mitigating evidence is reversed where: 1) the court of appeals applied 2003 ABA Professional Guidelines to defense counsel's conduct at a trial that took place in 1985; and 2) counsel's performance at the trial was not deficient under the standards in place at the time.

Read Bobby v. Van Hook, No. 09-144

Appellate Information

Decided November 9, 2009

Judges

Per Curiam

Concurrence by Justice Alito

In a capital habeas matter, circuit court of appeals' order reversing a district court's order granting habeas relief on a Sixth Amendment claim is vacated and remanded where the circuit court erred in disposing of petitioner's remaining, unaddressed challenges to his death sentence without explanation of any sort.

Read Corcoran v. Levenhagen, No. 08-10495

Appellate Information

Filed October 20, 2009

Judges

Per Curiam

Defendant's drug conviction is reversed, where the trial court's admission of the prosecution's certificates by laboratory analysts, stating that material seized by police and connected to Defendant was cocaine of a certain quantity, violated petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him.

Read Melendez-Diaz v. Mass., No. 07-591

Appellate Information

Argued November 10, 2008

Decided June 25, 2009

Judges

Scalia, J. delivered the opinion of the Court.

Kennedy, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

Counsel

For Petitioner:

Jeffrey L. Fisher, Stanford Law School, Stanford, CA

For Respondent:  

James J. Arguin, Assistant Attorney General, Boston, MA

Martha Coakley, Attorney General, Boston, MA

Susanne G. Reardon, Office of the Attorney General, Boston, MA

In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action alleging an unlawful search of a student, the denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity is affirmed where the search of Plaintiff's underwear violated the Fourth Amendment because the facts did not give school officials reasonable suspicion to search her underwear.

Read Safford Unified Sch. Dist. No. 1. v. Redding

Appellate Information

Argued April 21, 2009

Decided June 25, 2009

Judges

Souter, J., delivered the opinion of the Court.

Stevens, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part

Ginsburg, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.

Thomas, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part.

Counsel

For Petitioner:

Matthew W. Wright, Holm Wright Hyde & Hays PLC, Phoenix, AZ

For Respondent:

Adam B. Wolf, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Santa Cruz, CA

In an appeal from the District Court's order denying an ex-Enron executive-defendant's motion to dismiss his wire fraud indictment on Double Jeopardy grounds, the order is reversed where an apparent inconsistency between a jury's verdict of acquittal on some counts and its failure to return a verdict on other counts does not affect the acquittals' preclusive force under the Double Jeopardy Clause.

Read the full decision in Yeager v. US, No. 08-67.

See the case docket.

Appellate Information:

On writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Filed on June 18, 2009

Judges:

Stevens, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined, and in which Kennedy, J., joined as to Parts I-III and V.

Kennedy, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.

Scalia, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Thomas and Alito, JJ., joined.

Alito, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Scalia and Thomas, JJ., joined.

Counsel:

For Petitioner - Samuel J. Buffone, Ropes & Gray LLP. Washington, DC.

For Respondent - Elena Kagan, Solicitor General, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC.

In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action seeking the evidence used to convict Defendant of sexual assault for the purposes of DNA testing, summary judgment for Plaintiff is reversed where, assuming Plaintiff's claims could be pursued using Section 1983, he had no constitutional right to obtain post-conviction access to the State's evidence for DNA testing.

Read the full decision in District Attorney's Office for the Third Judicial Circuit v. Osborne, No. 08-6.

See the case docket. 

Appellate Information:

On writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Filed on June 18, 2009

Judges:

Roberts, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito, JJ., joined.

Alito, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Kennedy, J., joined, and in which Thomas, J., joined as to Part II.

Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Ginsburg and Breyer, JJ., joined, and in which Souter, J., joined as to Part I. Souter, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

Counsel:

For Petitioner - Kenneth M. Rosenstein, Office of Special Prosecutions & Appeals, Anchorage, AK

For Respondent - Peter J. Neufeld, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, New York, NY.