These abstracts of recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions were obtained from FindLaw & Justia.

This page includes only the criminal law and related decisions.

Cornell's Legal Information Institute will email copies of the official syllabi.

Supreme Court website
 

United States Supreme Court Review-Preview-Overview:  October 2008-09 Terms; thru August 18, 2009
  by Paul Rashkind, Chief, Appellate Division, Office of the Federal Public Defender, S.D. FLA.
 

Recent Decisions
_______________

Firearm--a machinegun--is an element to be proved to the jury not a sentencing factor 
( May 24, 2010)
US v. O'Brien, No. 08–1569
The First Circuit's affirmance of defendant's sentence for using a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence is affirmed where the fact that the firearm was a machine gun was an element to be proved to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt, not a sentencing factor to be proved to the judge at sentencing.

Juvenile cannot be sentenced to life in prison for non-homicide
(May 17, 2010)
Graham v. Florida
Court held that the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause of the United State Constitution does not permit a juvenile offender to be sentenced to life in prison without parole for a non-homicide crime.

Immigration consequences - risk of deportation - client must be advised
(March 31, 2010)
Padilla v. Kentucky, No. 08–651
In postconviction proceedings arising from a drug distribution prosecution, after which petitioner faced deportation based on his guilty plea and claimed that his counsel failed to advise him of the consequences of the plea, denial of postconviction relief is reversed and remanded where, because counsel must inform a client whether his plea carries a risk of deportation, petitioner sufficiently alleged that his counsel was constitutionally deficient. This decision is huge. Padilla appears to apply retroactively and is not limited to affirmative misadvice cases: “[T]here is no relevant difference between an act of commission and an act of omission in this context.” Aside from the controlled substance conviction at issue in the case, the Court did not identify what other offenses carry “succinct and straightforward” immigration consequences as to trigger the heightened obligation to advise more completely on immigration consequences.

No physical force, no violent felony
(March 02, 2010)
Johnson v. US, No. 08–6925
A circuit court's judgment upholding a sentence for possession of ammunition by a convicted felon, which was enhanced under the Armed Career Criminal Act, is reversed where the Florida felony offense of battery by actually and intentionally touching another person does not have as an element the use of physical force against the person of another, and thus does not constitute a violent felony under 18 U.S.C. section 924(e)(1).

Miranda satisfied
(February 24, 2010)

Maryland v. Shatzer, No. 08–680
In a sexual child abuse prosecution, the state court of appeals' reversal of defendant's conviction is reversed where defendant experienced a break in Miranda custody lasting more than two weeks between first and second attempts at interrogation, and thus Edwards did not mandate suppression of defendant's statements during the second interrogation.

Florida v. Powell, No. 08–1175
In a state prosecution for possession of a weapon by a convicted felon, a reversal of defendant's conviction on Miranda grounds is reversed where the police satisfied Miranda's requirements by informing defendant that he had "the right to talk to a lawyer before answering any of their questions," and that he had "the right to use any of his rights at any time he wanted during the interview."

Excessive force claims must be based on nature of force not extent of injury
(February 22, 2010)
Wilkins v. Gaddy, No. 08-10914
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action alleging excessive force by a correctional officer, a court of appeals' affirmance of dismissal of the complaint is reversed where the district court's approach (based on its determination that plaintiff's injuries were "de minimis") was at odds with precedent directing it to decide excessive force claims based on the nature of the force, rather than the extent of the injury.

Conviction reversed where right to public trial was violated by closure of voir dire proceedings
(January 19, 2010)
Presley v. Georgia, No. 09–5270
In a drug trafficking prosecution, the state supreme court's affirmance of defendant's conviction is reversed where the trial court failed to consider all reasonable alternatives to closure when it excluded defendant's uncle from the voir dire proceedings, in violation of defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a public trial.

Appeals court incorrectly held that habeas petition was procedurally barred based on insufficient record
(January 19, 2010)
Wellons v. Hall, No. 09–5731
In a capital habeas matter, the petition for certiorari is granted and the court of appeals' order is vacated and remanded where the court of appeals incorrectly held that the habeas petition, which claimed that petitioner was denied discovery into the issue of whether there had been improper communications between the judge and jury, was procedurally barred based on an insufficient record, contrary to Cone v. Bell, 556 U.S. ___ (2009).

Warrantless search justified under emergency aid exception
(December 7, 2009)
Michigan v. Fisher, No. 09–91
In an assault prosecution, grant of petitioner's motion to suppress evidence that he pointed a rifle at an officer when he entered his house is reversed where the officer did not violate the Fourth Amendment because he was responding to a report of a disturbance and encountered a tumultuous situation in the house, which justified a warrantless search under the emergency aid exception.

Habeas - mitigating evidence
(November 30, 2009)
Porter v. McCollum, No. 08–10537
In capital habeas proceedings, circuit court's order reversing a district court's grant of a habeas petition is reversed where it was objectively unreasonable for a state court to conclude that there was no reasonable probability the sentence would have been different if the sentencing judge and jury had heard the significant mitigation evidence that petitioner's counsel neither uncovered nor presented, including evidence of petitioner's mental health or mental impairment, his family background, or his military service.

Good confrontation clause opinion
(June 25, 2009)
Melendez-Diaz v. Mass., No. 07–591
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.

Search violates fourth amendment
(June 25, 2009)
Safford Unified Sch. Dist. No. 1. v. Redding, No. 08-479
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.

No constitutional right to obtain post-conviction access to State's evidence for DNA testing.
(June 18, 2009)
District Atty.'s Offc. v. Osborne, No. 08–6
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.

Double Jeopardy / partial acquittal
(June 18, 2009)
Yeager v. US, No. 08–67
In an appeal from the District Court's order denying 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.

Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar court from conducting a full hearing on Defendant's mental capacity after trial.
(June 01, 2009)
Bobby v. Bies, No. 08-598
In a capital habeas matter, the Court of Appeals' order prohibiting the state court from holding a post-conviction hearing on whether Defendant was mentally retarded is reversed where the Double Jeopardy Clause did not bar the state court from conducting a full hearing on Defendant's mental capacity after trial.