U.S. Supreme Court - The FindLaw U.S. Supreme Court Opinion Summaries Blog

Recently in Criminal Law Category

A recent unanimous High Court decision is making headlines thanks to it clearing up some semantic confusion. According to SCOTUS, the crime of burglary not only includes homes, businesses, and livable structures, but also vehicles that can be adapted to be, or are designed to be, lived in.

The case made it to the Supreme Court because of purported ambiguity when it came to sentencing under the Armed Career Criminal Act, which imposes mandatory sentencing guidelines for federal convicts with prior violent crime convictions, including burglary. The confusion is alleged to stem from the word burglary; specifically, whether under the ACCA, the term burglary included vehicles that could be adapted or are used as dwellings.

Justice Sonya Sotomayor has issued another dissent in a case involving another death row inmate opting for the electric chair over a lethal injection as his preference for execution. And while the ink was barely dry on the page, David Miller was executed.

The impassioned Justice explains in a brief page-and-a-half dissent, that the very idea that Miller's choice was voluntary is a "fiction." She further explains that the inmate should not have been required to show other "available alternative means of his own execution." In a footnote, the Justice quotes another court's finding that "electrocution will unquestionably inflict intolerable pain unnecessary to cause death in enough executions so as to present a substantial risk that any prisoner will suffer unnecessary and wanton pain."

This week, after the High Court closed for a day to honor the late President Bush, it heard arguments in the highly-watched Gamble case, which involved a rather risky challenge to settled Supreme Court precedent involving the separate sovereign exception to double jeopardy.

One of the reasons this case has become so highly-watched is due to the potential implications it could have for Paul Manafort, or anyone else connected to President Trump that may face federal charges and could benefit from a pardon. While Gamble's case is definitely a little bit different, his appeal hinges on the High Court ruling that the separate sovereign exception is unconstitutional and violates the very principle behind double jeopardy.

In a lonely dissent, Justice Sotomayor explained that she believes her colleagues made a mistake in not taking up the matter of Edmund Zagorski.

Zagorski became the first person to be executed in the electric chair in five years in this country, and that was due to the fact that the lethal injection couldn't be proven to be painless, given the recent troubles we've all seen and read about. In short, while lethal injection was once believed to be a painless process, it is now understood to feel like being burned alive from the inside out while drowning and suffocating (for as long as 18 minutes).

The case of Vernon Madison was just argued before the Supreme Court again. However, this time, there might be a bit of a catch 22, or perhaps, a catch 8, seeing as how the Court is one justice shy of the full 9.

Nevertheless, for the death row inmate suffering from dementia, the novel legal questions his case has presented has stumped scholars and justices over the past few years. The big question boils down to whether a person with dementia, who cannot remember his crime(s), should be executed. Generally, there are exceptions to death sentences. Namely, per SCOTUS's own rulings, minors and the mentally incompetent cannot be executed thanks to the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

In a detailed 5- 4 opinion, the High Court basically proclaimed the following rule when it comes to law enforcement obtaining an individual's cell phone location data:

Before compelling a wireless carrier to turn over a subscriber's CSLI, the Government's obligation is a familiar one -- get a warrant.

In Carpenter v. U.S., Justice Roberts, for the majority, stressed the fact that individuals have a privacy interest in their cell phone location data, and that absent probable cause and a warrant, or exigent circumstances, it cannot be searched by law enforcement.

The United States Supreme Court chimed in this week to end the circuit split over the interpretation of the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act. The act requires individuals convicted of certain federal offenses to reimburse individuals who participate in the criminal investigation and prosecution for some reasonable costs related to the participation.

However, recently, the Fifth Circuit held that a private lender that spearheaded a $4 million investigation after a company they worked with filed for bankruptcy was entitled to restitution for those costs. Meanwhile, the D.C. Circuit in a different case had found that these costs were not eligible for restitution under the MVRA. SCOTUS sided with the D.C. Circuit, reversing the Fifth, and putting the circuit split to rest.

In the latest ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court, an 8 to 1 majority opinion held that the Fourth Amendment's vehicle exemption did not apply to a motorcycle, stored under a tarp, on the curtilage of an individual's home.

The basic facts are reminiscent of a deceivingly complex bar exam question. An officer suspected an individual was in possession of a stolen motorcycle that was involved in a couple serious traffic incidents. The officer did some Facebook snooping, and found Ryan Collins who had posted photos of the same motorcycle parked in his driveway.

The officer went to Collins' home and saw a tarp at the top of the driveway next to the home. He then walked up the driveway to the tarp, lifted the tarp up, identified the motorcycle was in fact the one he was looking for, replaced the tarp, then went back to his car to wait for Collins to arrive home. When he did, Collins admitted to buying the bike without title, and the officer arrested him.

For four federal criminal defendants in the Southern District of California, the United States Supreme Court just took away a little major victory they had scored on behalf of all federal criminal defendants in that federal district.

In the United States v. Sanchez-Gomez case, a unanimous Supreme Court reversed the holding of the Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, that the Federal District Court for the Southern District of California's policy to shackle criminal defendants' hands and feet was unconstitutional. And while the Ninth Circuit truly grappled with the merits of the facts and law, SCOTUS saw an opportunity to give the whole case the old moot boot, and the whole Court took it.

Court: Extra-Territorial Wiretaps 'Not Insufficient'

Rejecting arguments to suppress evidence in a drug case, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the power of a judge to issue wiretap orders outside a trial court's jurisdiction.

In Dahda v. United States, a Kansas judge issued wiretap orders that were used to intercept communications in Kansas and other states. The justices held unanimously that the wiretap orders were "not insufficient" under a federal wiretap statute.

The Court rejected the defendants' argument that allowing judges extra-territorial jurisdiction produced "bizarre" results.