Entries tagged with “Miranda” from Harmfulerror
With thanks to Scotusblog:
Carr v. United States - the Court, on a 6-3 vote, reverses and remands in an opinion by Justice Sotomayor. Justice Scalia concurs in part and in the judgment, but joins most of Justice Sotomayor's opinion. Justice Alito dissents, joined by Justices Thomas and Ginsburg.
- Holding: The Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, a 2007 law that requires sex offenders to register, does not apply to sex offenders whose interstate travel occurred before the Act went into effect.
The Court rejects the Government's argument that a violation of 18 U.S.C. 2250(a), which requires (1) a sex-offense conviction, (2) subsequent interstate travel, and (3) a failure to register, may be violated by a failure to register after the effective date, even if the conviction and interstate travel took place before the effective date. The Court's ruling deals primarily with statutory interpretation and deals extensively with past tense vs. present tense words. The Court does not address the ex-post facto clause issues because the case is resolved as a matter of statutory interpretation.
Berghuis v. Thompkins - the Court reverses and remands in an opinion by Justice Kennedy. The vote is 5-4, with Justice Sotomayor dissenting joined by Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer.
- Holding: The Court upholds the state court decision rejecting the claim of a violation of Miranda v. Arizona. The defendant's silence while being questioned by police did not amount to an invocation of his Miranda right to remain silent.
After advising Thompkins of his rights, detectives interrogated him about a shooting. He did not say that he wanted to remain silent or that he wanted an attorney. He was largely silent during the 3-hour interrogation, but eventually said "yes" when asked if he prayed to God to forgive him for the shooting. The Sixth Circuit found that Thompkins had not waived his right to remain silent and found that the state court was unreasonable in finding an implied waiver based upon Thompkins' response to the detectives. The Supreme Court finds that the state court's decision was correct and that silence during an interrogation does not invoke the right to remain silent. Officers are not required to obtain a waiver before interrogating the accused. As with the right to counsel, the defendant must make an unambiguous invocation of the right to remain silent. In other words, a defendant is required to speak, by saying that he wants to remain silent or does not want to talk, and may not merely remain silent to invoke his right to remain silent. Insane. Here's to hoping that our state constitution provides a more rational result.
Levin v. Commerce Energy - the Court reverses and remands, with Justice Ginsburg writing the opinion for the Court. The vote is unanimous. Justice Kennedy concurs and Justice Thomas concurs in the judgment only, joined by Justice Scalia. Justice Alito concurs separately in the judgment.
- Holding: Under the doctrine of comity, a tax payer's lawsuit claiming discriminatory state taxation must proceed originally in state court, even when it is a request to increase the tax burden on a competitor.
Alabama v. North Carolina - the Court overrules the exceptions to the Special Master's reports and adopts the Special Master's recommendations. Justice Scalia writes the opinion for the Court. The Chief Justice dissents in part and concurs in part, joined by Justice Thomas.
Samantar v. Yousuf - the Court affirms the lower court's judgment and remands the case, in an opinion by Justice Stevens. The vote is unanimous. Justice Alito concurs, Justice Thomas concurs in part and concurs in the judgment, and Justice Scalia separately concurs in the judgment.
- Holding: Former Somalian official Mohamed Ali Samantar's claim of immunity to a damages lawsuit for alleged atrocities in Somalia is not governed by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. But the Court leaves to litigation in the lower court whether Samantar is entitled to common law immunity, or whether he may assert other legal defenses.
The Court granted certiorari in Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research v. United States. The issue presented is whether the Treasury Department can categorically exclude all medical residents and other full-time employees from the definition of "student" in 26 USC 3121(b)(1), which exempts from Social Security taxes "service performed in the employ of a school, college or university" by a "student who is enrolled and regularly attending classes at such school, college or university." Briefs are available at the link above.
Ritter v. State - (Elko) - insufficient evidence to support the conviction of trafficking in a controlled substance. It appears that the defendant was arrested on an outstanding warrant and was transported to the jail in a police car. The next day, officers found a bag of methamphetamine in the police car, under the front seat. The Court finds insufficient evidence after finding that there was no proof of actual possession, no proof of constructive possession, and abandonment.
Bowser v. State - (Las Vegas) - reversal of a conviction for first-degree murder and other offenses based upon a bailiff's shotgun demonstration to the jury. The bailiff did not inform the court or counsel for either party that the jury wanted a demonstration of a shotgun. At the jury's request, the bailiff pumped the gun and fired it as fast as he could. The bailiff later performed a similar presentation in the courtroom. The Court found juror misconduct based upon the bailiff's actions and found the defendant was prejudiced. The Court rejects the defendant's claim that admission of statements to the police following invocation of Miranda rights warranted reversal. At the time of his arrest he stated "you guys got me. I'm going to make you work for it. I'll see what my attorney can do for me." The Court finds that the defendant did not unequivocally invoke his right to counsel.
Schuster v. State - (Las Vegas) - reversal of a conviction for second degree murder and other offenses based upon the district court's failure to give an instruction on involuntary manslaughter.
In a fourth case, Rudolpho v. State, the Court finds that a defendant should not have been convicted of both grand larceny and possession of stolen property. The Court vacates the conviction for possession of stolen property but otherwise affirms the conviction.
It's a long, but interesting read: Doody v. Schriro. My favorite paragraph, at page 30 of the pdf:
"The
Miranda warnings provided to Doody were defective because Detective Riley downplayed the warnings' significance, deviated from an accurate reading of the Miranda waiver form, and expressly misinformed Doody regarding his right to counsel. In view of clear, convincing and contrary evidence, the Arizona Court of Appeals' conclusion that the Miranda warnings were "clear and understandable" constituted both an unreasonable determination of the facts and an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. See Siebert, 542 U.S. at 608.Our colleagues in dissent chastise us for reaching these conclusions, accusing the majority of "once again pay[ing] mere lip service to AEDPA and then proceed[ing] as though it did not exist."
See Dissenting Opinion, p. 3032. The dissent would prefer that we simply parrot the findings made during the state court proceedings and call it a day. However, if we succumb to the temptation to abdicate our responsibility on habeas review, we might as well get ourselves a big, fat rubber stamp, pucker up, and kiss The Great Writ good-bye."Well said, Judge Rawlinson.
In Florida v. Powell, a 7-2 decision authored by Justice Ginsburg, the Court finds that Miranda warnings were sufficient and did not mislead the accused into believing that he could not have an attorney present during questioning. The Court notes that it has not required specific language for the warnings, so long as the warnings reasonably convey to a suspect his rights as required by Miranda. The Court also finds that a federal question is presented despite the Florida Supreme Court's citation to its state constitution as a basis for its holding.
The Court also issued an opinion in Hertz Corp. v. Friend. The opinion concerns diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction and finds that a corporation's principal place of business is the place where the corporation's high level officer's direct, control and coordinate the corporation's activities - it's nerve center.
Yesterday, the Court issued a per curiam, summary decision in Thaler v. Haynes. The Court found that, under AEDPA, a trial judge need not personally observe a potential juror's behavior in later deciding whether the prosecutor used a peremptory challenge based upon the juror's race. The prosecutor here claimed that the peremptory was used because of the juror's demeanor. No prior ruling of the Court has required that the judge be present during jury selection in order to evaluate a Batson claim under these conditions.
The Court also issued a summary decision in Wilkins v. Gaddy. The Court found that claims of excessive force on a suspect must be evaluated on the basis of the nature of the foce used, not on whether the plaintiff suffered an injury during the incident.
Huesner (Allen) v. State, Docket No. 52023
Las Vegas- 10:00 a.m. - Justices Hardesty, Douglas, and Pickering.
The evidence presented at trial demonstrated that after Allen Heusner had been served with a temporary protective order, he broke into the home he shared with his wife, beat to death the man with whom his wife had been having an intimate relationship, and set a blanket on fire. Heusner was convicted of first-degree murder, first-degree arson, and burglary while in possession of a deadly weapon. Heusner raises numerous issues on appeal. ISSUES: Did the district court err in allowing the State to pursue a theory of felony murder with the predicate felony being burglary based upon entry with an intent to murder? Did the district court abuse its discretion by admitting prior bad act evidence? Did the district court abuse its discretion when it instructed the jury that it did not have to be unanimous on the theory supporting the first-degree murder conviction? Did the admission of evidence of Heusner's post-arrest silence violate his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination?
Love (Sherri) v. State, Docket No. 52403
Las Vegas- 10:30 a.m. - Justices Hardesty, Douglas, and Pickering
Sherri Love is appealing her conviction for murdering her 7-year-old daughter, attempting to murder her 8-year-old son, and abusing and neglecting her son by killing his sister in front of him and stabbing him in the hand. This incident occurred in Clark County several days after Love left a detoxification program, where she was being treated for alcoholism and drug addiction. ISSUES: Did the district court properly instruct the jury?
Polk (Levenral) v. State, Docket No. 52733
Las Vegas- 10:30 a.m. - Justices Hardesty, Douglas, and Pickering
This appeal challenges witness testimony, Nevada's deadly weapon enhancement, the district court's ability to dismiss an injured juror prior to consulting with the parties, and whether a juror who lost consciousness during trial should have been dismissed. Levenral Polk is appealing his second conviction for murdering a long-time friend, by shooting him from a car. Polk was initially convicted of first-degree murder, but was granted a new trial by a federal court. At his second trial in Clark County, Polk was convicted of second-degree murder with the use of a deadly weapon and discharging a firearm out of a motor vehicle. ISSUES: Did the district court improperly permit a witness to offer hearsay evidence about forensic test results when that witness did not perform the forensic testing? Is the deadly weapon enhancement statute unconstitutional in light of the United States Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller? Did the district court abuse its discretion by dismissing an injured juror prior to consulting the parties? Did the district court err when it failed to dismiss a juror who lost consciousness during trial?
From Scotusblog.com:
Docket: 08-1470
Title: Berghuis, Warden v. Thompkins
Issue: Whether the Sixth Circuit expanded the Miranda rule to prevent an officer from attempting to non-coercively persuade a defendant to cooperate where the officer informed the defendant of his rights, the defendant acknowledged that he understood them, and the defendant did not invoke them but did not waive them.
- Opinion below (6th Circuit)
- Petition for certiorari
- Petitioner's reply
Docket: 08-1402
Title: Berghuis, Warden v. Smith
Issue: Whether the Sixth Circuit erred in concluding that the Michigan Supreme Court failed to apply "clearly established Federal law" under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 when it rejected a state prisoner's Sixth Amendment fair cross-section claim and whether the Sixth Circuit erred in applying the comparative-disparity test (for evaluating the difference between the numbers of African Americans in the community as compared to the venires).
Docket: 08-1521
Title: McDonald, et al. v. City of Chicago
Issue: Whether the Second Amendment is incorporated into the Due Process Clause or the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment so as to be applicable to the States, thereby invalidating ordinances prohibiting possession of handguns in the home.
- Opinion below (7th Circuit)
- Petition for certiorari (08-1521)
- Brief in opposition
- Petitioner's reply (08-1521)
- Brief amicus curiae of Arms Keepers
- Brief amici curiae of Texas, et al
- Brief amicus curiae of National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc.
- Brief amicus curiae of American Civil Rights Union
- Brief amici curiae of Institute for Justice, and Cato Institute
- Brief amicus curiae of California
- Brief amici curiae of Gun Owners of America, Inc.,et al.
- Brief amici curiae of Constitutional Law Professors
Docket: 08-1569
Title: United States v. O'Brien and Burgess
Issue: Whether the mandatory minimum sentence enhancement under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) to a 30-year minimum when the firearm is a machinegun is an element of the offense that must be charged and proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, or instead a sentencing factor that may be found by a judge by the preponderance of the evidence.
Docket: 08-1301
Title: Carr v. United States
Issue: Whether a person may be criminally prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. § 2250 for failure to register when the defendant's underlying offense and travel in interstate commerce both predated the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act's enactment ; whether the Ex Post Facto Clause precludes prosecution under § 2250(a) of a person whose underlying offense and travel in interstate commerce both predated SORNA's enactment.
Docket: 08-974
Title: Lewis et al. v. City of Chicago
Issue: When an employer adopts an employment practice that discriminates against African Americans in violation of Title VII's disparate impact provision, must a plaintiff file an EEOC charge within 300 days after the announcement of the practice, or may a plaintiff file a charge within 300 days after the employer's use of the discriminatory practice?
- Opinion below (7th Circuit)
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition
- Petitioner's reply
- Brief amicus curiae of the United States
- Supplemental brief of respondent
Docket: 08-1322
Title: Astrue v. Ratliff
Issue: Whether an "award of fees and other expenses" under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. 2412(d), is payable to the "prevailing party" rather than to the prevailing party's attorney, and therefore is subject to an offset for a pre-existing debt owed by the prevailing party to the United States.
Docket: 08-1498 ; 09-89
Title: Holder, Attorney General v. Humanitarian Law Project ; Humanitarian Law Project v. Holder
Issue: Whether 18 U.S.C. 2339B(a)(1), which prohibits the knowing provision of "any *** service, *** training, [or] expert advice or assistance," to a designated foreign terrorist organization, is unconstitutionally vague; Whether the criminal prohibitions in 18 U.S.C. § 2339B(a)(1) on the provision of "expert advice or assistance" "derived from scientific [or] technical ... knowledge" and "personnel" are unconstitutional with respect to speech that furthers only lawful, nonviolent activities of proscribed organizations.
08-1498
- Opinion below (9th Circuit)
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition
- Petitioner's reply
- Brief amici curiae of James J. Carey, et al.
09-89
Docket: 08-1529 ; 08-1547
Title: Migliaccio, et al. v. Castaneda et al. ; Henneford v. Castaneda et al.
Issue: Does 42 U.S.C. § 233(a) make the Federal Tort Claims Act the exclusive remedy for claims arising from medical care and related functions provided by Public Health Service personnel, thus barring Bivens actions?
- Opinion below (9th Circuit)
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition
- Petitioner's reply
- Brief amicus curiae of United States
- Petition for certiorari (08-1547)
- Petitioner's reply (08-1557)
- Brief amicus curiae of Commissioned Officers Association of the United States Public Health Service, Inc. (08-1547)
Docket: 08-1555
Title: Samantar v. Bashe Abdi Yousuf, et al.
Issue: . Whether a foreign state's immunity from suit under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), 28 U.S.C. § 1604, extends to an individual acting in his official capacity on behalf of a foreign state and whether an individual who is no longer an official of a foreign state at the time suit is filed retains immunity for acts taken in the individual's former capacity as an official acting on behalf of a foreign state.
Alvarez v. Smith - Whether local law enforcement agencies may seize and retain custody indefinitely of personal property without judicial or administrative review of the lawfulness of the continued detention of the property. Argument scheduled for 10/14/09
Beard v. Kindler. Under the adequate-state-ground doctrine, does a state procedural rule like Pennsylvania's fugitive waiver rule preclude federal habeas corpus review even though the state procedural rule is discretionary?Argument scheduled for 11/2/09.
Black v. United States - Whether the "honest services" clause of 18 U.S.C. § 1346 applies in cases where the jury did not find - nor did the district court instruct them that they had to find - that the defendants "reasonably contemplated identifiable economic harm," and if the defendants' reversal claim is preserved for review after they objected to the government's request for a special verdict.
Bloate v. United States - Whether time granted at the request of a defendant to prepare pretrial motions qualifies as "delay resulting from other proceedings concerning the defendant" and is thus excludable from the time within which trial must commence under the Speedy Trial Act of 1974, 18 U.S.C. 3161 et seq. Argument scheduled for 10/6/09.
Briscoe v. Virginia - If a state allows a prosecutor to introduce a certificate of a forensic laboratory analysis, without presenting the testimony of the analyst who prepared the certificate, does the state avoid violating the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment by providing that the accused has a right to call the analyst as his own witness?
Florida v. Powell - Must a suspect be expressly advised to his right to counsel during questioning and if so, does the failure to provide this express advice vitiate Miranda v. Arizona?
Graham v. Florida - Whether the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishments prohibits the imprisonment of a juvenile for life without the possibility of parole as punishment for the juvenile's commission of non-homicide.Argument scheduled for 11/9/09
Hemi Group v. New York City - Whether city government meets the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act standing requirement that a plaintiff be directly injured in its "business or property" by alleging non commercial injury resulting from non payment of taxes by non litigant third parties. Argument scheduled for 11/3/09
Johnson v. United States - Whether under the federal Armed Career Criminal Act a prior state conviction for battery is in all cases a "violent felony," even when the state held that offense does not have as an element the use or threatened use of physical force. Argument scheduled for 10/6/09
Maryland v. Shatzer - Whether Edwards v. Arizona (1981), which bars police from initiating questioning with criminal suspects who have invoked their right to counsel, applies to an interrogation that takes place nearly three years later. Argument scheduled for 10/5/09
McDaniel v. Brown - Nevada case - Whether, on federal habeas review, the evidence underlying the defendant's conviction for sexual assault was clearly insufficient under Jackson v. Virginia (1979). Argument taken off calendar.
Padilla v. Kentucky - Does the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of effective assistance of counsel require a criminal defense attorney to advise a non-citizen client that pleading guilty to an aggravated felony will trigger mandatory, automatic deportation, and if that misadvice about deportation induces a guilty plea, can that misadvice amount to ineffective assistance of counsel and warrant setting aside the guilty plea? Argument scheduled for 10/13/09
Pottawattamie County v. McGhee - Whether a prosecutor may be subjected to a civil trial and potential damages for a wrongful conviction and incarceration where the prosecutor allegedly violated a criminal defendant's "substantive due process" rights by procuring false testimony during the criminal investigation, and then introduced that same testimony against the criminal defendant at trial. Argument scheduled for 11/4/09
Smith v. Spisak - Did the Sixth Circuit contravene AEDPA by improperly extending Mills v. Maryland [re: mitigation jury instructions in a capital case]? Argument scheduled for 10/13/09
Sullivan v. Florida - Does imposition of a life without parole sentence on a thirteen-year-old for a non-homicide violate the prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, where the freakishly rare imposition of such a sentence reflects a national consensus on the reduced criminal culpability of children? Argument scheduled for 11/9/09
United States v. Comstock - Whether Congress had the constitutional authority to enact 18 U.S.C. 4248, which authorizes court-ordered civil commitment by the federal government of (1) "sexually dangerous" persons who are already in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons, but who are coming to the end of their federal prison sentences, and (2) "sexually dangerous" persons who are in the custody of the Attorney General because they have been found mentally incompetent to stand trial.
United States v. Stevens - Is 18 U.S.C. 48, on depictions of animal cruelty, facially invalid under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment? Argument scheduled for 10/6/09
Weyhrauch v. United States - Whether, to convict a state official for depriving the public of its right to the defendant's honest services through the non-disclosure of material information, in violation of the mail-fraud statute (18 U.S.C. Sec. 1341 and 1346), the government must prove that the defendant violated a disclosure duty imposed by state law.
Wood v. Allen - Whether the state court's conclusion-that during the sentencing phase of a capital case the defense attorney's failure to present the defendant's impaired mental functioning did not constitute ineffective counsel-was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts and whether the circuit court erred in its application of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) to the review of the state court decision. Argument scheduled for 11/4/09
Feed Subscription
If you use an RSS reader, you can subscribe to a feed of all future entries tagged “Miranda”.