The Criminal Law Docket in Plain English
on Dec 31, 2009 at 7:40 pm
The criminal law docket includes roughly thirty cases that divide fairly evenly into three categories:Â Criminal Procedure (including both constitutional criminal procedure and statutory rules); Criminal Law (for example, the term’s three cases involving the federal “honest services” statute); and Habeas Corpus (the post-conviction process).
Click the links below to scroll to cases of that subcategory, or browse the entire list below them.
———————
Title: Maryland v. Shatzer
Docket: 08-680
Argument date: October 5, 2009
Question presented: Under the Constitution, if a suspect being interrogated asks for his lawyer, the police must immediately stop questioning him until the lawyer arrives or until he voluntarily re-initiates a conversation.  The question presented is whether that rule continues to apply to an attempt to re-interview the suspect three years after he requested the lawyer.
———————
Title: Bloate v. United States
Docket: 08-728
Argument date: October 6, 2009
Question presented: The Speedy Trial Act requires that a defendant in a criminal case be tried within 70 days, excluding delays “resulting from other proceedings concerning the defendant, including but not limited to . . . delay resulting from any pretrial motion.â€Â The question presented is whether the time a defendant spent preparing pretrial motions – as opposed to the time spent by the court ruling on the motions – falls within the exclusion?
———————
Title: Padilla v. Commonwealth of Kentucky
Docket: 08-651
Argument date: October 13, 2009
Question presented: Criminal defendants have a constitutional right to “effective†counsel. Here, the lawyer failed to tell the defendant that his guilty plea would result in his automatic deportation. The question presented is whether the lawyer provided constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel that requires overturning the guilty plea.
———————
Title: Florida v. Powell
Docket: 08-1175
Argument date: December 7, 2009
Question presented: Must the police notify a criminal suspect of his right to have a lawyer present throughout a police interrogation?
———————
Title: Briscoe v. Virginia
Docket: 07-11191
Argument date: January 11, 2010
Question presented: The Constitution gives a criminal defendant the right to confront at trial the witnesses against him. The Supreme Court has held that if the government wants to introduce a lab report (for example, saying that powder found in the defendant’s possession was cocaine), the defendant has a right to cross-examine an analyst about how that lab report was produced. The question is whether the Constitution requires the government itself to call the analyst as a witness, or is it enough that the defendant has the right to call the analyst as his own witness?
———————
Title: United States v. Marcus
Docket: 08-1341
Argument date: February 24, 2010
Question presented: When a defendant raises an issue on appeal that he did not raise in the district court, that argument is generally subject to “plain error review,” which is hard to prove. In this case, the defendant argued for the first time on appeal that he had been unconstitutionally convicted for conduct that occurred before the criminal statute was enacted. The question presented is whether that claim prevails on plain error review so long as there is “any possibility” the defendant was convicted for conduct prior to the statute’s adoption, or whether a more stringent standard applies.
———————
Title: Barber v. Thomas
Docket: 09-5201
Argument date: Will be set for argument in March or April 2010
Question presented: Did the federal Bureau of Prisons properly adopt a rule that inmates receive “good-time†credit based on their time served rather than the length of the sentence (which would provide greater credits)?
———————
Title: Dillon v. United States
Docket: 09-6338
Argument date: Will be set for argument in March or April 2010
Question presented: When a defendant seeks to modify his sentence in light of a revision to the federal Sentencing Guidelines, is the trial judge bound by the Guidelines or may he impose a different sentence?
———————
Title: Robertson v. U.S. ex rel. Watson
Docket: 08-6261
Argument date: Will be set for argument in March or April 2010
Question presented: A person who violates a court order can be held in contempt, which can be civil (requiring payment of a fine, for example) or criminal (potentially requiring jail time). Here, a man violated a court order that he stay away from a woman. The woman successfully sought to have the man held in criminal contempt. The question presented is whether the Constitution permits a private person acting in her own name (rather than the government’s) to seek criminal contempt.
———————
Title: City of Ontario v. Quon
Docket: 08-1332
Argument date: Will be set for argument in March or April 2010
Question presented: Does the Constitution prevent the government from reviewing text messages sent by an employee on a government device.
———————
———————
Title: Johnson v. United States
Docket: 08-6925
Argument date: October 6, 2009
Question presented: Federal law imposes tougher sentences on defendants who previously have committed “violent felonies.â€Â The question is whether that is triggered by every conviction for “battery†or only convictions that involved actual or threatened physical force?
———————
Title: Graham v. Florida
Docket: 08-7412
Argument date: November 9, 2009
Question presented: Does the Constitution permit the government to sentence a person to life in prison with no chance of parole for a crime committed at the age of 16?
———————
Title: Sullivan v. Florida
Docket: 08-7621
Argument date: November 9, 2009
Question presented: Does the Constitution permit the government to sentence a person to life in prison, with no chance of parole, for a crime committed at age 13?
———————
Title: Black v. United States
Docket: 08-876
Argument date: December 8, 2009
Question presented: Federal law makes it a crime to deprive your employer of your “honest services.â€Â One question presented by this case is whether an employee of a private company violate the statute if there is no risk that his employer will be harmed? The case also presents an unrelated question regarding what a defendant must do to object to an erroneous jury instruction.
———————
Title: Weyhrauch v. United States
Docket: 08-1196
Argument date: December 8, 2009
Question presented: Can a state government official be convicted under the honest services statute for conduct that is not illegal under state law?
———————
Title: United States v. Comstock
Docket: 08-1224
Argument date: January 12, 2010
Question presented: Does the Constitution give Congress the power to enact a law providing that individuals who complete federal prison sentences may still be detained indefinitely because of the risk they will commit sex crimes.
———————
Title: United States v. O’Brien & Burgess
Docket: 08-1569
Argument date: February 23, 2010
Question presented: In a federal gun case, does the judge decide whether the gun was a machine gun by a preponderance of the evidence, or must the jury find that beyond a reasonable doubt?
———————
Title: Carr v. United States
Docket: 08-1301
Argument date: February 24, 2010
Question presented: The federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) requires defendants who commit certain sex-related offenses to register with state and federal databases. The issue is whether a defendant who committed a sex-related offense before SORNA became law must register after its enactment.
———————
Title: Skilling v. United States
Docket: 08-1394
Argument date: March 1, 2010
Question presented: The case raises two issues regarding the “honest services” law. First, must the defendant have intended to benefit himself? Second, is the statute unconstitutionally vague?  The case also raises a separate issue: what legal standard governs a claim that prejudice in the community prevented him from receiving a fair trial?
———————
Title: Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder
Docket: 09-60
Argument date: Will be set for argument in March or April 2010
Question presented: Federal law forbids a lawful permanent resident who has been convicted of an “aggravated felony†from asking an immigration judge to cancel his deportation. A defendant who is convicted multiple times for drug offenses can be deemed to have committed an aggravated felony. The question presented is whether the successive drug conviction is an aggravated felony automatically or instead only if the court specifically finds that the defendant is a repeat offender.
———————
A defendant convicted in state court can challenge the conviction as illegal or unconstitutional by seeking “federal habeas corpus.” All cases that may involve an application of the special rules governing claims brought on habeas corpus are in this category.
———————
Title: McDaniel v. Brown
Docket: 08-559
Argument date: Unclear whether the case will be set for argument
Question presented: A defendant can attempt to prove that his conviction was unconstitutional because there was not enough evidence to convict. The question presented is what standard the federal court should apply in considering such a claim, and in particular whether the federal court can consider evidence that was not presented to the state courts.
———————
Title: Smith v. Spisak
Docket: 08-724
Argument date: October 13, 2009
Question presented: A state conviction may be overturned on federal habeas corpus on the ground that it violated “clearly established†federal law. One question in this case is whether the instruction given to jurors about the requirement of jury unanimity violated law that was clearly established at the time. Another question is whether the court of appeals improperly presumed that the defendant’s lawyer’s poor performance influenced the outcome of the case.
———————
Title: Beard v. Kindler
Docket: 08-992
Argument date: November 2, 2009
Decision date: December 8, 2009
Decision: A defendant convicted in state court cannot challenge his conviction in a federal “habeas corpus” petition if there is an “independent and adequate” basis in state law for rejecting his claims — for example, if the defendant missed a deadline created by state law. Â The Supreme Court ruled that state law is not “inadequate” merely because state court judges have discretion whether to apply or ignore it.
———————
Title: Berghuis v. Smith
Docket: 08-1402
Argument date: January 20, 2010
Question presented: The case presents two issues. First, what test should be used to decide whether the defendant’s constitutional right to a jury representing a fair cross-section of the community has been violated? Second, assuming that the state courts in this case applied the wrong test, did they violate “clearly established federal law,” which is required to overturn the defendant’s conviction?
———————
Title: Berghuis v. Thompkins
Docket: 08-1470
Argument date: March 1, 2010
Question presented: The case raises two issues. First, when a defendant says he understands his “Miranda” rights but does not invoke or waive them, what are the police allowed to say in trying to persuade him to cooperate? Second, did the federal court of appeals in this case improperly override the state courts’ ruling that the evidence of the defendant’s guilt was so strong that he was not harmed by the bad performance of his lawyer?
———————
Title: Wood v. Allen
Docket: 08-9156
Argument date: November 4, 2009
Question presented: The question presented is whether the defendant’s death sentence should be overturned on federal habeas corpus on the ground that his lawyer provided constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel by not advising the jury of his significant mental impairments.
———————
Title: Holland v. Florida
Docket: 09-5327
Argument date: March 1, 2010
Question presented: Can the fact that a defendant missed the one-year deadline to file a “habeas corpus” petition challenging his conviction be forgiven because it resulted from his lawyer’s inexcusable mistake?
———————
Title: Kiyemba v. Obama
Docket: 08-1234
Argument date: Will be set for argument in March or April 2010
Question presented: May a federal court order that detainees held at Guantanamo Bay who have been deemed not to be “enemy combatants†be released into the United States?
———————
Title: Magwood v. Culliver
Docket: 09-158
Argument date: Will be set for argument in March or April 2010
Question presented: A state defendant is generally not permitted to file a “second or successive†federal habeas corpus challenge to his conviction or sentence. Here, the defendant filed a habeas corpus application and won a right to a reconsideration of his sentence. After the state court imposed the same sentence again, he again sought federal habeas corpus. This time, he raised a new argument that could have been in his initial application but was not. The question presented is whether the latter petition is “second or successive†and therefore forbidden.
———————
Title: Renico v. Lett
Docket: 09-338
Argument date: Will be set for argument in March or April 2010
Question presented: The Constitution forbids twice placing a defendant in “jeopardy” for the same crime. Here, at the first trial, the jury said it could not reach a verdict and the judge declared a mistrial. The issues are whether (i) a retrial violates the Constitution’s double jeopardy bar, and if so (ii) that rule was firmly established at the time of the defendant’s trial, so that it is a basis for overturning his conviction on a federal habeas corpus application.
