SUPREME COURT UPDATE

Since the textbook went to print, there have been several important U.S. Supreme Court decisions – some which could fairly be characterized as landmark opinions. Instructors may want to include these at the appropriate place in lectures. They can also serve as valuable discussion material and have been added to the appropriate chapter end materials in this manual as well. The cases are summarized here, as are other still pending criminal cases from the current Supreme Court term. Each summary identifies the relevant subject area the decision impacts.

  • Connick v. Thompson, No. 09-571, 563 U.S. ___ (2011). John Thompson spent fourteen years on death row for a crime he did not commit. He was freed after blood evidence surfaced that exonerated him. Thompson then sued the district attorney who oversaw the assistant district attorney who failed to turn the evidence over to Thompson’s defense team, claiming that at the very least, Connick, the district attorney, had failed to properly train his subordinates on evidentiary matters. A jury awarded Thompson $14 million dollars, presumably one million for each year he spent on death row knowing he was innocent of the crime he had been convicted of committing. The government appealed the verdict. Decision: In a 5-4 split decision, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that the district attorney was not responsible for the failure to properly train his subordinate when the lack of training resulted in an isolated wrongful conviction. Subject: Public corruption.
  • Wall v. Kohli, No. 09-868, 563 U.S. ___ (2011).KhalilKholi was convicted of ten counts of sexual assault on his stepdaughters and was sentenced to life in prison. After exhausting his state appeals, Kohli asked for a sentence reduction. Once that request was denied, he filed a habeas corpus petition with the federal court. The question for the Supreme Court was whether Kholi had waited too long to file his petition since more than one year had passed since his direct state appeal was rejected. Prisoners have just one year after the final state appeal is denied to file habeas corpus petitions. Decision: The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that a request for sentence reduction extends the deadline for filing a habeas corpus petition. Subject: Habeas Corpus, Appeals.
  • Michigan v. Bryant, No. 09-150, 562 U.S. ___(2011). A Michigan trial court convicted Richard Perry Bryant of second-degree murder, among other charges. Bryant challenged the admission of the victim's statements at trial for violating his Sixth Amendment right of confrontation. The victim told police who arrived on the scene that Mr. Bryant shot him, but died shortly thereafter. Bryan therefore did not have a chance to challenge the dead man’s allegations. Decision: In a 6-2 decision, the Supreme Court concluded that the police were dealing with an emergency rather than gathering evidence and could therefore use the statement at trial. Subject: Sixth amendment confrontation clause.
  • Harrington v. Richter, No. 09-587, No. 09-150, 562 U.S. ___(2011). Joshua Richter was convicted of burglary and murder. Richter argued that he was denied effective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment because his attorney did not conduct a pre-trial investigation to determine whether he needed a blood expert. The question for the Supreme Court was whether it was foreseeable that the state would use blood splatter pattern evidence and if so, whether the attorney was ineffective because he didn’t get an expert to counter the state’s evidence.Decision: The Supreme Court concluded that counsel was not necessarily ineffective if he didn’t anticipate the exact approach the prosecution would take. The approach counsel took was one out of several possibilities. Subject: Effective counsel, forensic evidence.
  • Premo v. Moore, No. 09-658, No. 09-150, 562 U.S. ___(2011). Randy Moore pled no-contest to felony murder and was sentenced to twenty-five years imprisonment. Moore petitioned for habeas corpus relief and argued that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to recognize that his taped confession was obtained unconstitutionally. Even the state agreed that the confession was invalid. The question facing the court was whether his counsel should have moved to suppress the confession before allowing Moore to enter a plea. Decision: The Supreme Court ruled that Moore did not have ineffective counsel after concluding that Moore had not been prejudiced by his counsel’s actions. That was because Moore had made other incriminating statements and accepting a plea deal took life in prison and the death penalty off the table. Subject: Effective counsel, confessions.
  • McDonald v. Chicago, No. 08-1521, 562 U.S. ___(2011). Several suits were filed against Chicago and Oak Park in Illinois challenging their gun bans after the Supreme Court issued its opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller. In that case, the Supreme Court held that a District of Columbia handgun ban violated the Second Amendment. There, the Court reasoned that the law in question was enacted under the authority of the federal government and, thus, the Second Amendment was applicable. Here, plaintiffs argued that the Second Amendment should also apply to the states when they enact laws regulating the possession of guns. Decision: The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the Second Amendment right to bear arms also applies to states. Subject: Right to bear arms.
  • Schilling v. United States, No. 08-1394, 562 U.S. ___(2011). Jeffrey Skilling was the former C.E.O. of Enron. He was convicted of conspiracy, securities fraud, making false representations to auditors, and insider trading. On appeal, Skilling argued that the jury was biased and pre-trial publicity had made it impossible to obtain an impartial jury. Decision: The Supreme Court held that pretrial publicity and community prejudice did not prevent Skilling from obtaining a fair trial. He did not establish a presumption of juror prejudice or actual bias. The trial was held in Houston, a large city with many eligible for jury service from which the parties could choose unbiased jurors. Plus, the court noted that a biased jury most likely would not have done what this one did – acquit Skilling of nine criminal counts. Subject: Right to jury of one’s peers.