1 / 34

SUPREME COURT UPDATE

SUPREME COURT UPDATE. G. Alan DuBois Patrick L. Bryant. SUPREME COURT UPDATE. Fourth Amendment Fifth Amendment Sixth Amendment Sentencing. Fourth amendment. Florida v. Harris. Florida v. Harris.

harley
Download Presentation

SUPREME COURT UPDATE

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. SUPREME COURT UPDATE G. Alan DuBois Patrick L. Bryant

  2. SUPREME COURT UPDATE • Fourth Amendment • Fifth Amendment • Sixth Amendment • Sentencing

  3. Fourth amendment

  4. Florida v. Harris

  5. Florida v. Harris Issue: Is an alert by a trained, certified narcotics dog by itself sufficient to establish probable cause?

  6. Florida v. Harris Holding: YES – in a dog of an opinion! • Field results “have relatively limited import” • Dog doesn’t even have to be “certified” • Trusts police to design accurate/effective training

  7. Florida v. Harris Throw us a bone? • Defendant can challenge adequacy of training • Field results “may sometimes be relevant” • Can challenge the alert itself • Probably requires discovery/expert

  8. Florida v. Jardines

  9. Florida v. Jardines Issue: Is a dog sniff at the front door of a suspected grow house a Fourth Amendment search requiring probable cause? Holding: ??? (Argued October 31)

  10. Misc. Fourth Amendment cases • Bailey v. United States: The rule from Michigan v. Summers that police can seize occupants during execution of a search is limited to occupants in the immediate vicinity. (Good language on exceptions to warrant requirement.) • Missouri v. McNeely: Is the dissipation of alcohol in the blood, by itself, an exigent circumstance permitting a warrantless blood draw? • Maryland v. King: Does the Fourth Amendment permit the collection and analysis of DNA taken from arrestees?

  11. FIFTH AMENDMENT

  12. Salinas v. Texas

  13. Salinas v. Texas Issue: Whether, and under what circumstances, does the Fifth Amendment protect a defendant’s refusal to answer law enforcement questions before he has been arrested or read his Miranda rights? Or, does the Fifth Amendment permit prosecutors to comment on post-arrest, pre-Miranda silence? Holding: ??? (to be argued April 17)

  14. Misc. Fifth Amendment cases • Blueford v. Arkansas: Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar retrial on greater offenses when the jury says it is hung on lesser-included, if the verdict is not yet final. • Evans v. Michigan: Double Jeopardy Clause does bar retrial if judge grants motion for acquittal because prosecutor failed to prove an “element,” even if that factor is not really an element. An erroneous acquittal is still an acquittal!

  15. SIXTH AMENDMENT

  16. Missouri v. Frye/Lafler v. Cooper

  17. Missouri v. Frye/Lafler v. Cooper Issues: Does the right to effective assistance of counsel apply to the plea bargaining process? Is there prejudice if the defendant accepts a subsequent, less‑favorable plea? (Frye) Is there prejudice if the defendant is later convicted after a fair trial? (Lafler)

  18. Missouri v. Frye/Lafler v. Cooper Holding: Counsel has a duty to communicate plea offer to the defendant (Frye), and to provide accurate advice about it (Lafler). But: How to show prejudice? What is the remedy?

  19. Missouri v. Frye/Lafler v. Cooper Prejudice: Reasonable probability that defendant would have accepted the plea, AND a reasonable probability that the plea would have been entered. Remedy: Up to court's discretion ‑‑ sentence from plea, sentence after trial, or "something in between." Can order govt to re‑offer plea.

  20. Missouri v. Frye/Lafler v. Cooper Burt v. Titlow (cert granted Feb. 25) -- (1) is defendant's testimony he would have accepted plea enough to show reasonable probability? (2) if so, must court resentence defendant in a way that remedies the violation?

  21. SENTENCING

  22. Setser v. United States

  23. Setser v. United States Issue: Can a district court order a federal sentence to run consecutively to a state sentence that has yet to be imposed?

  24. Setser v. United States Holding: Yes, even though 18 U.S.C. 3584 does not mention this.

  25. Peugh v. United States

  26. Peugh v. United States Issue: Does the Ex Post Facto Clause require the court to use the Guidelines in effect at the time of the offense, if the current Guidelines create a "substantial risk" of a higher sentence? Holding: ??? (argued Feb. 26)

  27. Descamps v. United States

  28. Descamps v. United States Issue: Under ACCA, can a court use the "modified categorical approach" when a state burglary offense is broader than generic burglary? Holding: ??? (argued Jan. 7)

  29. Alleyne v. United States

  30. Alleyne v. United States Issue: Do facts establishing mandatory minimums have to be charged in the indictment and proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt? Holding: ??? (argued Jan. 14)

  31. Alleyne v. United States What's next? • Retroactivity? • Prior convictions (Almendarez‑Torres) • Acquitted conduct (Watts) • Stat max? (fixed terms vs. implied life max)

  32. Alleyne v. United States Lessons: • Preserve, preserve, preserve! • Help is available!

  33. RESOURCES • Paul Rashkind’s outline http://www.rashkind.com/supct.pdf • SCOTUSBlog http://www.scotusblog.com/ • Alan/DSCRAP Alan_Dubois@fd.org http://www.fd.org/

More Related