Entries tagged with “jury selection” from Harmfulerror

Via Scotusblog, the US Supreme Court issued several opinions this week:

Wood v. Allen - Interpretation of 28 USC 2254(d)(2) and its requirement that federal habeas relief not be granted, in relevant part, unless the state court's decision was based "on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding."  The issue of whether the state court unreasonably applied Strickland is not addressed. 

South Carolina v. North Carolina - original action concerning apportionment of river water, the opinion addresses the standard for a nonstate entity's intervention in an original action.

Kucana v. Holder - judicial review of discretionary immigration decisions by the Attorney General is prohibited only for determinations made discretionary by statute, not by regulation. 

Presley v. Georgia - per curiam, 7-2 - In addition to a First Amendment right of access to jury selection, there is also a Sixth Amendment right to public proceedings for the accused.  Before closing the courtroom, trial courts are obligated to take every reasonable measure to accomodate public attendance at criminal trials.

Wellons v. Hall - per curiam, 5-4 - The Court decides the defendant was entitled to discovery.  It pretty much speaks for itself:

"From beginning to end, judicial proceedings conducted for the purpose of deciding whether a defendant shall be put to death must be conducted with dignity and respect. The disturbing facts of this case raise serious questions concerning the conduct of the trial, and this petition raises a serious question about whether the Court of Appeals carefully reviewed those facts before addressing petitioner's constitutional claims. We know that the Court of Appeals committed the same procedural error that we corrected in Cone v. Bell, 556 U. S. ___, ___ (2009) (slip op., at 17-18). We do not know how the court would have ruled if it had the benefit of our decision in that case.

Petitioner Marcus Wellons was convicted in Georgia state court of rape and murder and sentenced to death. Although the trial looked typical, there were unusual events going on behind the scenes. Only after the trial did defense counsel learn that there had been unreported ex parte contacts between the jury and the judge, that jurorsand a bailiff had planned a reunion, and that "either during or immediately following the penalty phase, some jury members gave the trial judge chocolate shaped as male genitalia and the bailiff chocolate shaped as female breasts," 554 F. 3d 923, 930 (CA11 2009). The judge had not reported any of this to the defense."

 

 

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 (6^th 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).

Opinion below (6^th Circuit)

Petition for certiorari

Brief in opposition

Petitioner's reply

Brief amici curiae of Connecticut, and Six Other States

 

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 (7^th 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.

• Opinion below (1^st Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner's reply

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.

• Opinion below (7^th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner's reply

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.

• Opinion below (8^th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner's reply

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 (9^th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner's reply
• Brief amici curiae of James J. Carey, et al.

09-89

• Conditional cross-petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Cross-petitioner's reply

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 (9^th 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.

• Opinion below (4^th Circuit)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner's reply

Tiffany B. v. Slay (Ronald)

            Las Vegas - 10:00 a.m. - Full court

Rico-Arreola (Oscar) v. State

            Las Vegas - 10:30 a.m. - Full court

Madison Equities v. Hamika (Jerry)

            Las Vegas - 11:30 a.m. - Full court

 

Tiffany B. v. Slay (Ronald),

Docket No. 50419

Tiffany B. filed a lawsuit against polygraph examiner Ronald Slay, alleging negligence and various intentional torts.  During an earlier divorce and child custody case between Tiffany and her ex-husband, Malakai K., Tiffany alleged that her minor daughter, G.B., reported sexual abuse by Malakai.  Because Malakai had passed a prior polygraph examination regarding similar allegations by G.B., the district court judge asked Tiffany to take a polygraph examination to assess her credibility in making the allegations.  Slay was appointed to administer Tiffany's polygraph examination.  Slay accepted the appointment but did not disclose that he had administered Malakai's prior polygraph examination.  Slay determined that Tiffany's answers during her polygraph examination were deceptive.  As a result of her failed examination and a psychological assessment relying in part on the results of the examination, Tiffany lost physical custody of G.B. for more than a year.  After G.B. continued to report abuse by Malakai, further assessments and polygraph examinations (administered by examiners other than Slay) were completed and Tiffany was eventually awarded sole custody of G.B.  In the lawsuit against Slay, Tiffany claimed that Slay's prior examination of Malakai disqualified Slay from examining her, even if he had disclosed the conflict.  Tiffany also contended that Slay's examination of her was negligent and that providing her results to a third party after the family court proceeding without her permission violated NRS 648.197.  Slay moved to dismiss Tiffany's lawsuit on the basis that he is entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity.  The district court granted Slay's motion, and Tiffany now appeals the dismissal of her lawsuit.  ISSUES: Is a polygraph examiner entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity?  Does quasi-judicial immunity apply in instances of intentional torts?  (Disclaimer:  This synopsis is intended to provide only general information about this case before the Nevada Supreme Court.  It is not intended to be all inclusive or reflect all positions of the parties.)

Rico-Arreola (Oscar) v. State,

Docket No. 49512

Oscar Rico-Arreola was convicted by a Clark County jury of sexual assault of a child under the age of 14.  The district court sentenced Rico-Arreola to life in prison with the possibility of parole after 20 years.  During jury selection, the State exercised peremptory challenges with respect to two African-American jurors.  Rico-Arreola made a challenge under Batson v. Kentucky, arguing that the State engaged in discrimination in dismissing the two jurors.  The State responded that it excused the jurors because they were social workers and social workers were often not as favorable to the State in criminal cases.  Rico-Arreola is now appealing his conviction to the Supreme Court.  ISSUES:  Did the State violate the law established in the U.S. Supreme Court case of Batson v. Kentucky when it dismissed the prospective jurors?  (Disclaimer:  This synopsis is intended to provide only general information about this case before the Nevada Supreme Court.  It is not intended to be all inclusive or reflect all positions of the parties.)

Madison Equities v. Hamika (Jerry),

Docket No. 50316

This case involves a dispute over a lease extension for a convenience store at a shopping center in Clark County, specifically whether Madison Equities had a duty to respond to Jerry Hamika's premature notice to extend the lease. 

This morning the US Supreme Court issued an opinion in Harbison v. Bell.  In a 7-2 decision the Court holds that federal habeas corpus counsel may represent a defendant in state clemency proceedings.

Yesterday the Court issued an opinion in Rivera v. Illinois.  The cases concerned an erroneous denial of a defense peremptory challenge of a potential juror.  The trial court refused the challenge on Batson grounds.  The Illinois Supreme Court found the district court's ruling to be erroneous but affirmed the conviction after finding that the denial of the challenge was not structural error.  The US Supreme Court affirmed and held that so long as all jurors seated in a criminal case are qualified and unbiased, the Due Process Clause does not require automatic reveral of a conviction based on the trial court's good faith error in denying a defense peremptory challenge.  It is an issue of state law, not a matter of federal constitutional law.

 

Three opinions were issued in civil cases:

14 Penn Plaza LLC v. Pyett - courts must enforce a labor contract that requires workers to take claims of age bias to arbitration rather than court.

Entergy Corp. v. EPA - concerning the EPA's authority to compare costs and benefits when deciding what technology to require for structures that affect river and stream flows.

Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs - concerning the state's authority to sell state lands.

The Court also issued an opinion in Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Williams, concerning punitive damages, in which it dismisses the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted.