by Kent Scheidegger · Dec 13, 2022 8:18 am
The U.S. Supreme Court this morning took up a case on the perennial knotty problem of the admissibility of co-defendant statements in joint trials. The case is Samia v. United States, No. 22-196. The out-of-court statement of one defendant is admissible against the defendant who made it, but generally not to incriminate other defendants. Continue reading . . .
by Kent Scheidegger · Dec 13, 2022 8:07 am
Does a venue error equal a Get Out of Jail Free card? That is, if the government files its charges in a locale that is later determined to be incorrect, does the defendant walk regardless of how clearly guilty he is or how atrocious the crime is? Or can he be retried in the venue now deemed correct?
The U.S. Supreme Court took up this question this morning in Smith v. United States, No. 21-1576.
by Kent Scheidegger · Dec 13, 2022 7:58 am
Here is one more step toward post-Covid normalcy. The U.S. Supreme Court’s Public Information Office said yesterday that the Court would resume its traditional practice of announcing decisions in person. Amy Howe has this post on her blog. Continue reading . . .
by Kent Scheidegger · Dec 12, 2022 8:52 am
The U.S. Supreme Court has taken up the case of United States v. Hansen, No 22-179, for full briefing and argument. Here is the Question Presented, as phrased by the Solicitor General:
Whether the federal criminal prohibition against encouraging or inducing unlawful immigration for commercial advantage or private financial gain, in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) and (B)(i), is facially unconstitutional on First Amendment overbreadth grounds.
The answer would seem to be a clear “no,” but the Ninth Circuit held to the contrary. Continue reading . . .
by Kent Scheidegger · Dec 5, 2022 3:22 pm
The U.S. Supreme Court has amended its rules, effective the first of the year. Among the changes, people filing “friend of the court” briefs no longer have to ask consent of the parties. The clerk’s comments on the changes note, “While the consent requirement may have served a useful gatekeeping function in the past, it no longer does so, and compliance with the rule imposes unnecessary burdens upon litigants and the Court.” Amen. Continue reading . . .
by Kent Scheidegger · Dec 5, 2022 8:14 am
The U.S. Supreme Court has issued an orders list from last week’s conference. No new cases were taken up. There are no criminal cases on this week’s oral argument docket.
The Court currently seems to be less interested in criminal law issues than in past years. To some extent, no news is good news. Federal constitutional limitations on state criminal law run only in the defendant’s favor. In addition, changes in the law in the defendant’s favor often have retroactive effect, while changes in the prosecution’s favor rarely do. So lack of change is, at least in part, good for law enforcement.
On the other hand, there are a lot of rules with no real basis in the Constitution that one might think that an originalist-dominated Supreme Court would want to get rid of. One possible explanation is that the Court has a sort of budget for turmoil and has spent it all in other fields for the time being. That could change as the storms from last term’s decisions subside. Continue reading . . .
by Kent Scheidegger · Nov 28, 2022 7:16 am
The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing two criminal cases today. Both involve interpretation of federal criminal statutes. Unlike the constitutional cases that make up a large part of the Supreme Court’s criminal docket, these will have little, if any, impact on state criminal cases. Continue reading . . .
by Kent Scheidegger · Nov 21, 2022 8:10 am
The U.S. Supreme Court issued a Monday orders list today. No new criminal cases taken up. (See update below.) No opinions dissenting from denial of certiorari. Continue reading . . .
by Kent Scheidegger · Nov 18, 2022 10:21 am
Alabama hit man Kenneth Eugene Smith got a (hopefully brief) respite from his execution yesterday. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit granted a stay on a different issue than the one noted in this post. The Supreme Court vacated the stay, three Justices dissenting, but the warrant expired at midnight, and the execution team was not able to find a suitable vein in that time.
Execution warrants that are good for one calendar day only are an old tradition, but there is no need for such a limitation. In an era where many judges are prone to issue last-minute stays, whether they are legally justified or not, a one-day window needlessly changes quickly reversed stays into longer ones in practice, as the date-setting machinery must be restarted. This is also very stressful for victims’ families, who often travel to the execution site believing that they are finally going to see long-overdue justice done, only to have it snatched away at the last minute.
States are gradually doing away with the one-day rule. California has a 10-day window, enacted by initiative. Continue reading . . .
by Kent Scheidegger · Nov 14, 2022 11:38 am
In its 2020 decision in Ramos v. Louisiana, the Supreme Court held that nonunanimous juries are unconstitutional in the guilt phase of criminal trials, and no doubt to the finding of sentencing factors to which the right of jury trial extends under the Apprendi rule. The high court did so despite the heavy reliance of two states on its contrary decision on the precise point nearly a half century earlier.
Last week, two Justices fired a shot across the bow of the six states that still allow juries of less than twelve people. Those states would be well advised to get rid of their small juries—prospectively only—immediately, before the Supreme Court does so retroactively. Continue reading . . .
SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED