Supreme Court Criminal Law News - U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. Supreme Court - The FindLaw U.S. Supreme Court Opinion Summaries Blog

Recently in Criminal Law Category

The Supreme Court expanded the reach yesterday of a federal law that prevents domestic abusers from owning a gun. In Voisine v. United States, the Court held six to two that federal laws prohibiting gun ownership to those convicted of a "misdemeanor crime of violence" extend to those where the violence was merely reckless, as opposed to intentional.

The ruling reconciles the federal law, which requires a showing of violence, with state criminal laws that require no such showing. Touching on both criminal law and the Second Amendment, the case inspired Justice Clarence Thomas's first question from the bench in ten years when it was argued in February.

We might have found Justice Scalia's replacement. No, we're not talking about Merrick Garland, any of the potential justices proposed by Donald Trump, or even Justice Clarence Thomas, who broke his ten-year silence by piping up at oral arguments to defend Justice Scalia's approach to the Second Amendment. Nope, Justice Scalia's shoes may have been filled by a woman who shared the bench with him for the past seven years: Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

Justice Scalia, you'll remember, was always at his best in his dissents, which were impassioned, wry, and often well-argued, even when patently offensive. But with her dissent in yesterday's ruling in Utah v. Strieff, Justice Sotomayor may have claimed the mantel of the Supreme Court's greatest dissenter.

Federal law makes it a felony for a habitual offender to commit domestic assault within Indian country, when the abuser has two or more prior convictions for domestic violence. And since the law seeks to protect Native American women from abuse, those predicate convictions can come from tribal courts.

But tribal courts are not required to provide lawyers for criminal defendants in many cases, including misdemeanor domestic assault charges. And while that would be a violation of the Sixth Amendment should it occur in state or federal court, that does not stop federal courts from relying on lawyerless tribal convictions as predicate offenses for the domestic violence law, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday.

Getting a judge removed from a case is no easy task. After all, under federal law, it is up to the judges themselves to determine, on their own, whether a conflict of interest could lead to their impartiality being questioned. Other than a judge's own conscience, there's little to require recusals in cases of potential judicial bias.

But the Supreme Court took a small step towards establishing some hard and fast constitutional rules yesterday. The case that brought about the change was about as stark an example of judicial conflict of interest as one can get. Terrence Williams, a man sentenced to death for the brutal killing of a church deacon, appealed his conviction to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, only to have it heard by that court's chief justice who had overseen his prosecution decades earlier.

Puerto Rico may have its own constitution, elect its own leaders, and pass its own laws, but when it comes down to it, Congress, not the people of Puerto Rico, is the ultimate source of the island government's power. That's the lesson from today's Supreme Court ruling in Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle, over whether the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico could prosecute criminals already tried by the federal government, as the 50 states can.

Under the dual-sovereignty doctrine, both federal and state governments may prosecute an individual for a crime, so long as they do so under their own laws. Puerto Rico argued that it was entitled to the same rights as the states when it came to double jeopardy. But, while acknowledging Puerto Rico's "distinctive, indeed exceptional status," the Court ultimately determined that Puerto Rico's prosecutorial power comes from the U.S. Congress, rejecting the island's claim to state-like sovereignty. The ruling is a blow to the island, and it may soon be followed by more Supreme Court losses in the near future.

Questions about race, intellectual disability, and the death penalty will return to the halls of the Supreme Court in the near future. Yesterday, the Court agreed to hear appeals in two capital punishment cases out of Texas.

The first, Buck v. Stephens, involves a defendant who was sentenced to death after a psychologist, called to the stand by his own lawyer, testified that black defendants were more dangerous than white ones. The second, Moore v. Texas, concerns whether Texas can rely solely on an outdated, 23-year-old standard for determining intellectual disabilities for purposes of capital punishment, to the exclusion of modern standards.

Prisoners can be a litigious bunch. Facing years of imprisonment and a dearth of engaging activities, scores of jailhouse lawyers file scores of (often pro se) claims, from civil rights suits, to writs of habeas corpus, to claims that Michael Vick stole their dogs.

But, pursuing those claims isn't easy. There are significant barriers set up to keep prisoners out of federal courts, not the least of which is the Prison Litigation Reform Act's administrative exhaustion requirement. And the Supreme Court shored up that particular barrier even more today, ruling unanimously that the Fourth Circuit's "special circumstances" exception to exhaustion was inconsistent with the PLRA.

A black death row inmate has been saved from execution this morning, after the Supreme Court ruled that prosecutors violated the Constitution when striking all potential African American jurors from his trial. Timothy Foster had been convicted of capital murder in Georgia in 1987. He later discovered evidence showing that prosecutors exercised their peremptory strikes almost entirely because of race. Under Batson v. Kentucky, that evidence was enough to undo his conviction, the Supreme Court ruled 7-1 today.

But what the case means for Foster, and for others like him, is still unclear.

After Brandon Betterman pleaded guilty to bail jumping, he spent over 14 months in jail, simply waiting to be sentenced. Betterman eventually appealed, arguing that the year-long delay violated his right to a speedy trial.

But, unfortunately for Betterman and the many other individuals who can wait months before being sentenced, the Sixth Amendment's speedy trial guarantee does not include a right to a speedy sentencing, the Supreme Court ruled in a unanimous opinion released this morning.

In 2003, at the start of the Iraq war, a U.S. Army Sergeant Hasan Akbar turned on his fellow soldiers, tossing three grenades into the tents of the sleeping 101st Airborne Division, then opening fire as the soldiers fled. Two men were killed, 14 wounded. Akbar, who had been suffering from psychiatric problems, was court-martialed and sentenced to death.

Now, as Steve Vladeck notes in the Just Security blog, the Supreme Court could soon decide to review his case. But it's not Akbar's crimes that are in question, it's whether the way the military imposed his capital conviction is constitutional. And it's a case that could undermine every military death sentence.