by admin
on June 21, 2015
Attorney Chis Donovan posted some interesting research on WACDL’s listserv last week. He was looking into what constitutes a “critical stage” of a criminal prosecution at which the defendant is entitled to counsel. He cautioned readers to “key cite” the cases before using them. On Point includes Donovan’s list here and has indexed it so you can find it on our Archive Page under “VIII. Counsel, 6th Am, A. Right to Counsel,
2. critical stage” next time you need it!
For more on how to determine whether a particular stage is “critical” thus entitling the defendant to counsel, see Wayne R. LaFave et al, “Right to Counsel: Stage of the Proceeding,” 3 Crim. Proc. §11.2(b)(3d ed.)(Dec. 2014).
Feel free to add to the list using the “comment” box below. Thanks, Chris!
{ }
by admin
on June 21, 2015
Brumfield v. Cane, USSC No. 13-1433, (June 18, 2015), reversing Brumfield v. Cain, 744 F.3d 918 (5th Cir. 2014); SCOTUSblog page (including links to briefs and commentary); Majority opinion by Sotomayor; dissenting opinion by Thomas (joined in part by Roberts, Scalia and Alito)
Brumfield was convicted of murder and sentenced to death before Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) prohibited the execution of the intellectually disabled. Afterwards, Brumfield, who has an IQ of 75, sought to prove is intellectual disability in state court, but was denied the time and funding to get an expert as well as an evidentiary hearing. In a 5-4 decision, SCOTUS found this an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented under 28 USC §2254(d)(2) and allowed Brumfield to have his Atkins claim considered on the merits in federal court. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on June 19, 2015
Davis v. Ayala, USSC No. 13-1428 (June 18, 2015), reversing Ayala v. Wong, 756 F.3d 656 (9th Cir. 2013); majority opinion by Justice Alito; concurrences by Justices Kennedy and Thomas; dissent by Justice Sotomayor
SCOTUSblog page (including links to briefs and commentary)
Jury selection for Hector Ayala’s murder trial spanned 3 months and involved more than 200 prospective jurors. So when the prosecutor used peremptory challenges to strike every single Black and Hispanic juror from the pool, the defense objected based on Batson v. Kentucky. The trial court gave the prosecution a chance to present race neutral reasons for its strikes, but excluded the defense from the hearing. Ayala, who was convicted, said excluding him and his lawyer violated his constitutional rights. The majority assumed, but did not decide that, a constitutional violation occurred and then held . . . (all together now) “harmless error!”
The California Supreme Court held that it was error (as a matter of state law) [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on June 19, 2015
State v. Lavarren D. Etienne, 2014AP2881-CR, 6/18/15, District 4 (one-judge opinion; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
This appeal concerned the sufficiency of evidence to support a jury verdict that Etienne intentionally violated a bond which prohibited him from having contact with “P.J.” Etienne said the contact was accidental. Due to the deference given to jury findings, Etienne’s argument failed. So did his claimed due process violation. [continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on June 18, 2015
Ohio v. Darius Clark, USSC No. 13-1352, 2015 WL 2473372 (June 18, 2015), reversing State v. Clark, 999 N.E.2d 592 ((Ohio 2013); Scotusblog page (including links to briefs and commentary)
A unanimous Supreme Court holds that statements a child made to his teachers about who was physically abusing him were not “testimonial” for purposes of the Confrontation Clause. The Court agrees that the Confrontation Clause may apply (at least in the abstract) to statements made to someone other than a law enforcement officer; however, a majority of the Court says that, in general, statements made to someone who is not a law enforcement officer “are much less likely to be testimonial than statements made to law enforcement officers” and, with regard to children in particular, “[s]tatements made by very young children will rarely, if ever, implicate the Confrontation Clause.” The decision is therefore likely to lead to a more restrictive application of the Confrontation Clause jurisprudence adopted in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), and thus more frequent admission of out-of-court statements of witnesses.
[continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on June 18, 2015
Stephen McFadden v. United States, USSC No. 14-378, 2015 WL 2473377 (June 18, 2015), reversing and remanding United States v. McFadden, 753 F.3d 432 (4th Cir. 2014); Scotusblog page (including links to briefs and commentary)
The Supreme Court holds that in order to convict a defendant of distribution a controlled substance analogue, the government must prove that the defendant knew the substance was controlled under the federal Controlled Substances Act or the Analogue Act, or that the defendant knew the specific features of the substance that make it a controlled substance analogue.
[continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on June 18, 2015
State v. Timothy J. Relyea, 2014AP2860-CR, District 4, 6/18/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Put down that Sprecher® Root Beer if you’re behind the wheel! It could get you pulled over by a sharp-eyed cop who is knowledgable about the bottling practices of the beverage industry.
[continue reading…]
{ }
by admin
on June 18, 2015
State v. Kirk L. Griese, 2015AP180, District 4, 6/18/15 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
There was probable cause to believe Griese was operating under the influence, even though the officer arrested Griese while he was having a Bacardi and Coke in the bar to which he had driven.
[continue reading…]
{ }
