Sitting Docket Title(link to Wiki page) Issue Argument(link to transcript) Decision(link to opinion)
14-602Umana v. United StatesWhether, at capital sentencing, the government may seek to prove the aggravating factor that the defendant committed previous unadjudicated murders through hearsay statements to police of other suspects in those murders, without permitting the defendant to confront or cross-examine his accusers. (Opinion by )
14-182Irish v. CainWhether, where a prosecutor voluntarily discloses during post-conviction proceedings that he withheld impeachment evidence from the defense during the course of a capital case, and that he believed from his personal interaction with the key witness in the case that he was a liar, Due Process requires that the conviction be vacated and a new trial ordered. (Opinion by )
14-175Geller v. Patent and Trademark Office(1) Whether the United States Patent and Trademark Office may refuse a trademark registration for a mark because the Office understands the mark to be disparaging in violation of § 2(a) of the Trademark Act based upon the Office’s interpretation of the viewpoint of the trademark applicant’s political speech related tangentially to the subject of the mark; and (2) whether the court of appeals erred by utilizing a standard of review for the “ultimate registrability” of petitioners’ mark that (a) conflicts with the standard utilized by the majority of circuits that have addressed this issue, and (b) is both illogical in theory and muddled in practice. (Opinion by )
14-6810Carr v. Kansas(1) Whether a jury view is evidentiary, and thus a critical stage of a criminal prosecution, requiring the presence of the defendant, and the assistance of counsel, under the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, a question as to which state courts of last resort, as well as the federal circuits, are in conflict; and (2) whether, when a trial court’s erroneous evidentiary rulings result in the complete exclusion of the accused’s defense, the error can ever be declared harmless; or, in the alternative, whether the error in this case required reversal, alone or in combination with the trial court’s erroneous refusal to sever the petitioner’s trial from that of his co-defendant. (Opinion by )
14-618Woods v. Donald(1) Whether the Michigan courts' decision not to extend United States v. Cronic to cover counsel's brief absence from trial was an “extreme malfunction” entitling the petitioner to habeas relief; and (2) whether the Michigan courts reasonably determined that Donald had not shown Strickland v. Washington prejudice flowing from his counsel's brief absence in a multi-defendant case during the taking of evidence that did not inculpate his client. (Opinion by )
Term Snapshot