Entries tagged with “confrontation” from Harmfulerror
Vega (Bernardo) v. State of Nevada,
Docket No. 53752
Las Vegas - 11:30 a.m. - Justices Hardesty, Douglas, and Pickering
Bernardo Vega is appealing his convictions by a jury of three counts of sexual assault with a minor under the age of fourteen and two counts of open and gross lewdness. Vega's convictions arose out of several incidences involving his step-daughter in Clark County. ISSUES: Did sufficient evidence support Vega's convictions on three counts of sexual assault with a minor under the age of fourteen? Did the district court abuse its discretion by admitting expert testimony in violation of the Confrontation Clause? Did the district court abuse its discretion by admitting testimony regarding the victim's attempted suicides?
Cobb (Delbert) v. State of Nevada,
Docket No. 50346
Las Vegas - 10:30 a.m. - Justices Hardesty, Douglas, and Pickering
This case arises out of a series of shootings that occurred in Clark County between November 4 and December 16, 1999. Cobb pleaded guilty to attempted murder for two of the incidents. Cobb was found not guilty of a murder that occurred on December 16, 1999, however, the jury convicted him of attempted murder and first-degree murder for the shooting of a father (who later died) and son on November 13, 1999. Cobb was also convicted of conspiracy. Cobb now appeals. ISSUES: Did the district court abuse its discretion in admitting hearsay testimony, evidence of prior bad acts, and the preliminary hearing testimony of an unavailable witness? Did the district court abuse its discretion in refusing to sever the various charges for trial? Did the State violate Batson v. Kentucky when it used peremptory challenges to strike two minority jurors? Is Cobb entitled to a new trial because the jury was not selected from a fair cross-section of the community?
In Briscoe v. Virginia, the Court accepted certiorari on issues concerning the Confrontation Clause and expert testimony. After hearing oral argument, the Court summarily vacated the judgment of the Supreme Court of Virginia and remanded the case for further proceedings not inconsistent with Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts.
In Hemi Group v. City of New York, the Court addresses a civil RICO action and finds that because the City of New York cannot show that it lost tax revenue "by reason of" an alleged RICO violation (based on failure to provide customer information for internet cigarette purchases), it cannot state a RICO claim. The plaintiff must show a direct relationship, "but for" causation and proximate causation.
The Court granted certiori in two cases, that were consolidated for oral argument: Abbott v. United States and Gould v. United States. They present the question of (1) whether the term "any other provision of law" of 18 USC 924(c) includes the underlying drug trafficking offense or crime of violence; and (2) if not, whether it includes another offense for possessing the same firearm in the same transaction. Scotusblog provides the opinion below, petition for cert. and the response.
Mon., Jan. 11:
Alabama v. North Carolina (132 Original) -- interstate dispute over enforcement of regional pact on disposal of radioactive wastes; responses to Special Master's report
Briscoe v. Virginia (07-11191) -- scope of crime lab analysts' role in a criminal trial; sequel to Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, on Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause rights
Tue., Jan. 12:
U.S. v. Comstock (08-1224) -- constitutionality of prolonged imprisonment of sex offenders after sentences completed
Abbott v. Abbott (08-645) -- parents' rights under Hague Convention on child custody
Wed., Jan. 13:
American Needle v. National Football League (08-661) -- antitrust liability of pro sports leagues for joint commercial activity
Jerman v. Carlisle (08-1200) -- legal error as an excuse for violation of debt collection law
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. ยง 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
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts - a state forensic analyst's laboratory report prepared for use in a criminal prosecution is "testimonial" evidence and is therefore not admissible, per Crawford v. Washington, absent the opportunity to confront and cross-examine the person who prepared the report. A State may enact a "notice-and-demand" statute which allows a state to give pretrial notice of its intention to use an affidavit and places the responsibility on the defense to object by demanding that the State produce the witness. The 5-4 opinion was authored by Justice Scalia. Justice Kennedy filed a dissenting opinion which was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Breyer and Alito.
The opinion is consistent with existing Nevada case authority - Las Vegas v. Walsh, 121 Nev. 899, 904-06, 124 P.3d 203, 207-08 (2005) (citing in footnote 11 of the Melendez opinion).
Safford United School District #1 v. Redding - the Fourth Amendment prohibits public school officials from conducting a strip search of a student suspected of possessing and distributing a prescription drug on campus in violation of a school policy, but the constitutional right was not clearly established at the time of the search so the girl cannot sue for damages. Justice Souter authored the majority opinion. Justice Stevens filed a partial dissent joined by Justice Ginsburg. Justice Ginsburg filed an opinion concurring opinion and dissenting in part. Justice Thomas concurred in part and dissented in part.
Atlantic Sounding Co. Inc. v. Townsend - concerns whether a seaman may recover punitive damages for the willful failure to pay maintenance and cure. 5-4 decision authored by Justice Thomas. Justice Alito authored a dissenting opinion which was joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia and Kennedy.
Horne v. Flores; Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives v. Flores - concerns an injunction against Arizona for failing to provide sufficient funding for non-English speaking school children. 5-4 decision authored by Justice Alito. Justice Breyer authored the dissenting opinion which was joined by Justices Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg.
The remaining 3 decisions of the 2008--09 term will be released on Monday.
The Nevada Supreme Court has issued several unpublished orders resolving appeals in criminal cases. Some are of interest, though they may not be cited as precedent under SCR 123.
In Dealba v. State, the Court reverses a judgment of conviction of one count each of robbery with use, attempted murder with use, and possession of a firearm by an ex-felon. The district court allowed a detective to testify about several statements made by Dealba's co-defendant following the co-defendant's arrest. The trials of the two defendants were not severed. The co-defendant did not testify, but the district court did order that Dealba's name be replaced with the word "individual" in the interrogation transcript of the co-defendant. No limiting instruction was given. The Court finds that it was error to fail to give the jury a limiting instruction under Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200 (1987). The Court rejects Dealba's argument that the use of the word "individual" as a redaction was error. The Court finds that the error was not harmless and notes that neither of the two victims were able to identify Dealba.
In Hodson v. State, the Court affirms a judgment and rejects the defendant's First Amendment arguments concerning his conviction for one count of making a bomb threat.
In Spinks v. State, the Court affirms an order of restitution for $16,040.49, on a reckless driving and DUI conviction, based upon the victim's medical expenses relating to a pre-existing heard condition which the victim argued was exacerbated by the car accident involved in the DUI incident. No medical or expert testimony was presented to establish causation. The Court upheld the district court's retitution order based upon the testimony of the victim and receipts for the expenses. This one is pretty interest and fairly controversial. I'm surprised it's an unpublished disposition.
In Croft v. State, the Court affirms an order of the district court denying a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus, but also finds that the district court was wrong to find that the petition was a "fugitive document" because the defendant filed the petition in proper person and his trial counsel had not filed a motion to withdraw. "A post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus is a collateral proceeding from the underlying criminal conviction, and thus, the fact that trial counsel had not withdrawn from the case when appellant filed his petition had no bearing upon the propriety of the filing of the petition in proper person." This is a basic proposition, but the fact that it had to be explained to a seasoned judge should have warranted publication of the order as an opinion so as to provide guidance to the district courts.
Downs v. Napolitano - an inmate non-lawyer may not not receive a contingency fee for preparing a medical malpractice action. The Court will not recognize an action for breach of contract based upon an act which violates state law.
Monday, November 10
US Supreme Court orders released (no new cert grants were ordered)
10:00 - US Supreme Court oral argument in Chambers v. United States (whether failure to report to prison is a "violent felony" under the Armed Career Criminals Act).
11:00 - US Supreme Court oral argument in United States v. Hayes (whether federal gun laws require a domestic relationship between an attacker and victim to qualify as a misdemeanor crime of "domestic violence").
1:00 - US Supreme Court oral argument in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts (whether the Confrontation Clause gives criminal defendants a right to cross-examine forensic analysts who prepare laboratory reports for use in prosecution).
Tuesday, November 11
Holiday. Courts closed.
Wednesday, November 12
10:30 - Nevada Supreme Court oral argument in Jeffries v. State
11:30 - Nevada Supreme Court oral argument in Courtesy Cars v. Morgan
1:30 - Nevada Supreme Court oral argument in Perez-Marquez v. State
United States Supreme Court oral argument in Pleasant Grove City, UT v. Summum (whether donated monuments displayed in public parks qualify as private speech, thus requiring municipalities to display monuments from all other donors).
United States Supreme Court oral argument in Bell v. Kelly (whether the deferential standard in the federal habeas corpus statute should be applied to claims a state court did not conisder).
Thursday, November 13
Nevada Supreme Court opinion release day
10:00 - Nevada Supreme Court oral argument in Anderson v. Ruppco Inc.
10:30 - Nevada Supreme Court oral argument in Madruga v. Aguilar
1:30 - Nevada Supreme Court oral argument in Fields v. State
Friday, November 14
10:00 - Nevada Supreme Court oral argument in Ferguson v. Landmark Homes
10:30 - Nevada Supreme Court oral argument in State Engineer v. Morris Delee Revocable Trust
11:30 - Nevada Supreme Court oral argument in Cadle Co. II vs. Fountain
1:30 - Nevada Supreme Court oral argument in Las Vegas Paving v. Nevada Power
Feed Subscription
If you use an RSS reader, you can subscribe to a feed of all future entries tagged “confrontation”.