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

It was an unusual alignment of justices that came together to uphold the extortion conspiracy conviction of a former Baltimore police officer today. Samuel Ocasio, the Baltimore cop, had been convicted of extortion and conspiracy to commit extortion under the Hobbs Act for his role in an auto-repair kickback scheme. That conviction can stand, the Supreme Court ruled, rejecting arguments that a conspiracy to extort must involve taking property from someone outside the conspiracy, rather than willing participants in a scheme.

But not only was the Court's majority a rare combination of justices, it was a tenuous one at that.

The Supreme Court heard its final oral argument of the term this morning, and it was a fittingly weighty one: the case of former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell. McDonnell was convicted on corruption charges in 2014, stemming from his relationship with a Richmond businessman who gave him nearly $200,000 in gifts and loans.

McDonnell currently faces two years in prison for public corruption, but he may end up going free without serving a single day, if today's oral arguments are any indication. A majority of the Supreme Court justices seemed ready to significantly limit, or maybe even strike down, the federal bribery statute used to convict the governor.

Wednesday was not a shining moment in the history of Supreme Court oral arguments. This was not Paul Clement going punch-for-punch with Justice Souter in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. It wasn't even Margie Phelps, a crazed member of the Westboro Baptist Church, winning over the reluctant justices in Snyder v. Phelps.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments over whether states can penalize drivers who refuse to take warrantless breathalyzer tests. And attorneys for all sides performed "like a clodhopping amateur trying out for a moot court team," as Slate's Mark Joseph Stern so adroitly describes it.

Last June, the Supreme Court struck down the Armed Career Criminal Act's so-called residual clause. Under the ACCA, which is the federal "three strikes" law, certain violent offenders are subject to mandatory minimum sentences if they've been thrice convicted of specific crimes, or any crime involving "a serious potential risk of physical injury to another." That residual clause, quoted above, was unconstitutionally vague, the Court ruled in Johnson v. United States.

But an open question remained: what happens to those who had already been sentenced under the ACCA's residual clause, pre-Johnson? Now, that question has been answered. On Monday, in a 7-1 opinion, the Supreme Court announced that Johnson has fully retroactive effect in cases on collateral review.

Do accusations of an unfair conviction, tainted by juror racism, justify breaching the confidentiality of jury deliberations? The Supreme Court will answer that question in its next term.

On Monday, the Court granted cert to Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, a challenge to state and federal rules that prohibit evidence about juror statements made during deliberations. The so-called “no impeachment” rules have been criticized for impeding defendants’ ability to show that their right to a fair trial has been violated, though their supporters argue that the rules protect jurors from later coercion and uphold the integrity of deliberations.

A convicted sex offender who fled the country without notifying authorities did not violate the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, a unanimous Supreme Court ruled yesterday. Lester Ray Nichols had been on the sex offender registry in Kansas for a year when he up and moved to the Philippines. And that was just fine, the Supreme Court found, as SORNA did not require offenders to notify authorities when they left U.S. jurisdiction.

But don't worry; the ruling does not create an international "get off the registry for free" card for sex offenders. Here's why.

When we introduced President Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Chief Judge of the D.C. Circuit Merrick Garland, yesterday we described his judicial philosophy as "khaki." We still think it's a fitting descriptor. Judge Garland doesn't have the biting tongue of Justice Scalia or the strong liberal perspective of Justice Ginsburg.

But there are a few places where Judge Garland stands out. When it comes to criminal law, environmental law, and the Second Amendment, Garland's rulings deserve some extra attention.

Strict textualism is alive and well in the Supreme Court, even after Justice Scalia's passing. Nowhere can that be seen more clearly than in Lockhart v. U.S., one of the first decisions since Scalia's death.

The question presented: how to interpret statutory mandatory minimum sentences for sexual abuse. The result: a 6-2 split, broadly extending the reach of the statute. The cause: a dangling modifier the justices refused to overlook. Get out your grammar books, kids. This is going to be fun.

When the Supreme Court reconvened on Monday to hear its first oral arguments since Justice Scalia's passing, the justice's regular chair sat empty, draped in black. For a man who had such an impact on the court, and particularly on its oral arguments, Scalia's absence was palpable.

Now, with only eight justices left to hear and decide cases for the immediate future, how will oral arguments and the Supreme Court be affected? These first few days of arguments, along with some comments from Justice Alito, might give us a hint.

The Supreme Court heard arguments on Tuesday in the case of Taylor v. United States, a case involving the interstate commerce element of the Hobbs Act. The Hobbs Act makes robbery and extortion a federal crime, should those acts affect commerce. In this case, David Taylor, a member of Virginia's "Southwest Goonz" gang, was convicted under the Hobbs Act for robbing drug dealers of their marijuana. But, Taylor argues, the government never proved that his robbery affected interstate commerce since all that weed was Virginia-grown.

The arguments were, fittingly perhaps, a bit ... odd.