Questions presented: Whether the Eighth Amendment requires that a capital-sentencing jury be affirmatively instructed that mitigating circumstances “need not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt,” as the Kansas Supreme Court held here, or instead whether the Eighth Amendment is satisfied by instructions that, in context, make clear that each juror must individually assess and weigh any… Read more
44. SCOTUS
Questions Presented: 1) Did the rule announced in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U. S. ____, 132 S.Ct. 2455 (2012), adopt a new substantive rule that applies retroactively on collateral review to people sentenced as juveniles to life in prison without parole? 2) Does the Supreme Court have jurisdiction to decide whether the Supreme Court of Louisiana… Read more
Question presented: Whether Florida’s death sentencing scheme violates the Sixth Amendment or the Eighth Amendment in light of this Court’s decision in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002). Lower court decision: Hurst v. State, 147 So.3d 435 (Fla. 2014) Docket Scotusblog page Because this is a death penalty case, the decision in this case will… Read more
Question presented: Does a conspiracy to commit extortion in violation of the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(b)(2), require that the conspirators agree to obtain property from someone outside the conspiracy? Lower court decision: United States v. Ocasio, 750 F.3d 399 (4th Cir. 2014) Docket Scotusblog page This case will be of interest to federal practitioners who… Read more
Yates v. United States, USSC No. 13-7451, 2015 WL 773330 (February 25, 2015); reversing 733 F.3d 1059 (11th Cir. 2013); Scotusblog page In a four-one-four decision that is chock-a-block with nautical references and features some sparring about the canons and methods of statutory interpretation, the Supreme Court holds that the “anti-shredding provision” of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18… Read more
Christeson v. Roper, USSC No. 14-6873, 2015 WL 232187 (January 20, 2015) (per curiam); docket The Supreme Court holds that the lower courts failed to properly apply Martel v. Clair, 565 U. S. ___, 132 S. Ct. 1276 (2012), when they denied Christeson’s request to substitute appointed counsel in his federal habaeas case. Christeson, a capital defendant pursing federal… Read more
Holt v. Hobbs, USSC No. 13-6827, 2015 WL 232143 (January 20, 2015); reversing 509 Fed. Appx. 561 (8th Cir. 2013); Scotusblog page An Arkansas prison regulation bans inmates from having beards except when they have a medical need based on a diagnosed dermatological condition (in which case they can grow a 1/4-inch beard). Citing this regulation, prison officials barred… Read more
Question presented: Whether, to convict a defendant of distribution of a controlled substance analogue, the government must prove the defendant knew that the substance constituted a controlled substance analog, as held by the Second, Seventh, and Eighth Circuits, but rejected by the Fourth and Fifth Circuits. Lower court decision: United States v. McFadden, 753 F.3d… Read more
