Federal Judiciary

Boyle v. United States: Not much structure needed for RICO

Posted on June 08, 2009
The Supreme Court held that an association-in-fact enterprise under RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), must have a "structure," but it need not be, as Boyle sought the jury to be instructed in his bank robberies case, "an ascertainable structure beyond that inherent in the pattern of racketeering activity in which it engages...

Bobby v. Bies: No Double Jeopardy bar on mental capacity in death cases

Posted on June 01, 2009
A State court?s determination that a defendant?s mental retardation was a mitigating factor in the penalty phase of a capital case does not trigger Double Jeopardy issue preclusion, and foreclose the question whether, in the wake of the subsequently-decided decision in Atkins v...

Montejo v. Lousiana: Michigan v. Jackson overruled leaving an interrogation free-for-all

Posted on May 26, 2009
An inculpatory statement given by a defendant to police after the court ordered the appointment of counsel may be introduced at trial as evidence against him. In so holding, the Court overruled Michigan v. Jackson, which presumed that a waiver of the right to counsel was invalid once counsel was appointed at arraignment, and did not require the defendant to invoke the right to counsel...

Abuelhawa v. United States: Drug Telephone Counts Punish Sales Not Purchases

Posted on May 26, 2009
Whether the use of a telephone to buy drugs for personal use "facilitates" the commission of a drug "felony," in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(b), on the theory that the crime facilitated by the buyer is not his purchase of drugs for personal use (a misdemeanor), but is the seller?s distribution of the drugs to him (a felony)...

To access blog feed reader register for free. (You will also learn about new ways to read and access the freshest law blogs.)

Flores-Figueroa v. United States: "Knowingly" applies to all elements of aggravated identity theft law

Posted on May 04, 2009
The federal aggravated identity theft statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1), prescribes a mandatory two-year term of imprisonment for any person who, "during and in relation to" certain other specified crimes, "knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person...

Kansas v. Ventris: Exclusionary rule unnecessary to protect against Sixth Amendment violation through jailhouse snitch

Posted on April 29, 2009
Ventris was charged with murder and other crimes. The state planted another defendant in his cell as a "human listening device," even though Ventris? right to counsel had attached. Predictably, Ventris made incriminating statements to his cellmate. The state later conceded that it violated Ventris? Sixth Amendment right to counsel when it surreptitiously planted the snitch in Ventris? jail cell...

Dean v. United States: Accidental discharge sufficient for 924(c) sentencing enhancement

Posted on April 29, 2009
Dean?s gun accidentally discharged during a bank robbery, but no one was harmed. Dean was convicted of conspiring to commit a bank robbery and discharging a firearm during an armed robbery. Because the firearm was "discharged" during the robbery, he was sentenced pursuant to 924(c)(1)(A)(iii) to a 10-year mandatory minimum prison term...

Cone v. Bell: No defaults in habeas despite state court holdings to contrary

Posted on April 28, 2009
After the State discredited Cone?s defense that he killed two people while suffering from acute psychosis caused by drug addiction, he was convicted and sentenced to death. The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed on direct appeal and the state courts denied postconviction relief...

Arizona v. Gant: Restricting searches of recently occupied vehicles

Posted on April 21, 2009
Police officers went to a house suspected of being used for narcotics activity. One officer knocked on the door, and Rodney Gant answered the officer?s knock on the door. The officers asked to speak with the homeowner, but Gant told them that the owner was not at home and would not return until later that day...

Supreme Court Review-Preview-Overview

Posted on April 13, 2009
The current outline of Supreme Court criminal cases is available here. Other "cites" of interest are available here.

Corley v. United States - Presentment Delay Still Subject to McNabb-Mallory, as Limited by 3501

Posted on April 06, 2009
Title 18 U.S.C. § 3501 ? read together with Fed. R. Crim. P. Rule 5(a), McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 332 (1943), and Mallory v. United States, 354 U.S. 449 (1957) ? requires that a confession taken more than six hours after arrest and before presentment be suppressed if there was unreasonable or unnecessary delay in bringing the defendant before the magistrate judge...

Harbison v. Bell - Right to Federally-Appointed Clemency Counsel

Posted on April 01, 2009
(1) 18 U.S.C. § 3599 authorizes federally appointed counsel to represent their clients in state clemency proceedings and entitles them to compensation for that representation, and (2) A certificate of appealability pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) is not required to appeal an order denying a request for federally appointed counsel under § 3599 because § 2253(c)(1)(A) governs only final orders that dispose of a habeas corpus proceeding?s merits.

Rivera v. Illinois - Improperly Denied Peremptory Challenge Not Structural Error

Posted on March 31, 2009
Provided that all jurors seated in a criminal case are qualified and unbiased, the Due Process Clause does not require automatic reversal of a conviction because of the trial court?s good-faith error in denying the defendant?s peremptory challenge to a juror.

Puckett v. Uinted States - Breached Plea Agreement Subject to Harmless Error Review

Posted on March 25, 2009
In exchange for Puckett?s guilty plea, the government agreed to request (1) a three-level acceptance-of-responsibility reduction in his offense level; and (2) a sentence at the low end of the applicable guideline range. The district court accepted the plea, but before Puckett was sentenced he assisted in another crime...

Vermont v. Brillon: Speedy trial delays caused by PDs are not charged to the State

Posted on March 09, 2009
Absent a systemic breakdown in a state public defender system, delays caused by appointed counsel are not attributed to the state for purposes of Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972), speedy trial analysis.

United States v. Hayes - Domestic Battery Not an Element Under 922(g)(9)

Posted on February 24, 2009

Nelson v. United States: We really Meant it in Kimbrough

Posted on January 26, 2009
The sentencing court clearly applied a presumption of reasonableness to petitioner's Guidelines range, and the circuit court affirmed. The Supreme Court, in a per curiam decision, reversed, re-emphasizing that its cases do not allow a sentencing court (as opposed to an appellate court) to presume that a sentence within the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range is reasonable...

Arizona v. Johnson: Search of Auto Passenger Just Like Terry

Posted on January 26, 2009
In the context of a vehicular stop for a minor traffic infraction, may an officer conduct a pat-down search of a passenger when the officer has an articulable basis to believe the passenger might be armed and presently dangerous, but has no reasonable grounds to believe that the passenger is committing, or has committed, a criminal offense? The Supreme Court held that: (1) the first condition of Terry v...

Waddington v. Sarausad: Ambiguous Jury Instruction Not Clearly Established Wrong

Posted on January 21, 2009
Sarausad drove with fellow gang members to a high school, in order to retaliate against a rival gang. With knowledge that his front-seat passenger was armed and going to shoot, Sarausad drove toward a group of students standing outside the school. The passenger opened fire, killing one student and wounding another...

Spears v. United States: Kimbrough Means What it Says

Posted on January 21, 2009
Spears was found guilty of conspiracy to distribute at least 50 grams of cocaine base and at least 500 grams of powder cocaine. At sentencing, the district court determined that the drug quantities attributable to Spears yielded an offense level of 38, that his criminal history justified placing him in the Guidelines? criminal history category IV, and that the resulting advisory Guidelines sentencing range was 324 to 405 months? imprisonment...

Oregon v. Ice: Apprendi Does Not Govern Consecutive Sentences

Posted on January 14, 2009
Ice was convicted by a jury of two counts of first-degree burglary and four counts of first-degree sexual abuse. The court sentenced him to a total of 340 months, with three of the sentences running consecutively, based on its finding that the two burglaries of which Ice was convicted constituted "separate incidents," and that Ice?s conduct during the burglaries (which formed the basis for four other convictions) demonstrated a "willingness to commit more than one offense" "caus[ing] or creat[ing] a risk of causing greater or qualitatively different loss, injury or harm to the victim...

Herring v. United States: No Exclusionary Rule for negligent Police Error

Posted on January 14, 2009
Officers in one jurisdiction checked with employees of a law enforcement agency in another jurisdiction and were told that there is an outstanding warrant for an individual. Acting in good faith on that information the officers arrest the person and find contraband...

Jimenez v. Quarterman - Out-of-Time Appeal Tolls Habeas Time

Posted on January 13, 2009
Where a state court grants a criminal defendant the right to file an out-of-time direct appeal during state collateral review, but before the defendant has first sought federal habeas relief, his judgment is not "final" for purposes of §2244(d)(1)(A) until the conclusion of the out-of-time direct appeal, or the expiration of the time for seeking certiorari review of that appeal.

Chambers v. United States - Failure to Report to Jail is Not an ACCA Violent Felony

Posted on January 13, 2009
In a 9-0 decision, the Supreme Court held that a failure to report to penal confinement does not qualify as a "violent felony" for purposes of triggering the mandatory 15-year sentence for felons unlawfully in possession of a firearm who have three prior convictions...

Greenlaw v. United States - Appellate Court Can't Increase Sentence Sua Sponte

Posted on June 24, 2008
Greenlaw filed a direct appeal of his sentence; the government did not appeal the district court?s failure to make two sentences under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) ? a 5-year sentence and a 25-year sentence ? consecutive to each other and to other counts. The appellate court nevertheless remanded for imposition of the enhanced sentence, finding that the effect of the error was not "speculative...

Rothgery v. Gillespie County, TX - Right to Counsel at First Appearance

Posted on June 23, 2008
Rothgery was arrested without a warrant and booked into jail on suspicion he was a felon in possession of a gun. Apparently unknown to the arresting officer, there was no underlying felony because that earlier charge had been dismissed after the defendant completed a diversionary program...

Indiana v. Edwards - Right to Self-Represent Limited

Posted on June 19, 2008
Ahmad Edwards was tried for attempted murder, battery with a deadly weapon, criminal recklessness and theft following a shooting incident outside a store where he had shop-lifted a pair of shoes. He sought to represent himself but the trial judge found him not competent to do so...

Irizarry: 32(h) does not require notice of contemplated variance

Posted on June 13, 2008
In Irizarry v. U.S., No. 06-7517 (June 12, 2008), the Supreme Court held that Fed. R.Crim. P. 32(h), which requires a sentencing court to give the parties advance notice that it is contemplating a departure from the Guidelines, does not require the court to give notice of a contemplated variance from a recommended Guideline range...

Cueller v. United States: Insufficency of Money Laundering Evidence

Posted on June 02, 2008
Cuellar was driving a Volkswagen Beetle south on State Highway 77 in Texas, approximately 100 miles from the Mexican border. A police officer stopped him due to his erratic driving. Upon confronting him, police observed odd and inconsistent behavior, including that Cueller crossed himself as police conducted their investigation...

United States v. Santos - Only Profits are Proceeds Under Money Laundering Statute

Posted on June 02, 2008
Santos ran an illegal lottery, from which he paid runners a commission, salary to collectors, and winnings to bettors. He was convicted under the principal federal money laundering statute, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956(a)(1)(A)(i) and 1956(h), which makes it a crime to engage in a financial transaction using the "proceeds" of certain specified unlawful activities with the intent to promote those activities or to conceal the proceeds...

United States v. Williams - Pandering and Solicitation of Child Pornography Law Constitutional

Posted on May 19, 2008
Congress passed the 2003 "PROTECT Act" to try to shore up federal controls on child pornography after the Supreme Court struck down a 1996 federal law on the subject in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002). The new law, 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(3)(B) criminalizes, in certain specified circumstances, the pandering or solicitation of child pornography...

United States v. Ressam - Explosives "in relation to " Any Crime OK

Posted on May 19, 2008
Ressam was arrested in 1997 as part of the alleged Millennium bombing planned for Los Angeles International airport. He attempted to enter the United States by car ferry at Port Angeles, Washington. Hidden in the trunk of his rental car were explosives that he intended to detonate at the Los Angeles International Airport...

United States v. Rodriguez - ACCA Predicates Computed on Enhanced Maximum Sentence

Posted on May 19, 2008
The Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. §924(e)(2)(A)(ii), imposes a mandatory minimum 15-year sentence for felons-in-possession with three qualifying prior offenses. Under ACCA, a state drug-trafficking conviction qualifies as "a serious drug offense" if "a maximum term of imprisonment of ten years or more is prescribed by law" for the "offense...

Gonzalez v. United States - Jury Selection by Magistrate OK if Counsel Alone Waives Art. III Judge

Posted on May 12, 2008
Gonzalez, a Mexican citizen who does not speak English, was represented by counsel at his federal drug-trafficking trial. After appearing before a United States district judge at several pretrial conferences, he was brought before a United States magistrate judge for jury selection...

Virginia v. Moore - Search OK Following Arrest Violating State Law

Posted on April 23, 2008
Rather than issuing the summons required by Virginia law, police arrested Moore for the misdemeanor of driving on a suspended license. A search incident to the arrest yielded crack cocaine, for which Moore was charged and tried. The trial court declined to suppress the evidence on Fourth Amendment grounds...

Begay v. United States: DUI not a Violent Felony under ACCA

Posted on April 16, 2008
ACCA imposes a special mandatory 15-year prison term upon felons who unlawfully possess a firearm and who have three or more prior convictions for certain drug crimes or "violent felonies." Begay had 12 prior convictions for driving while intoxicated in violation of New Mexico law...

Burgess v. United States: Misdemenaor=Felony

Posted on April 16, 2008
The federal Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A), doubles the mandatory minimum sentence for certain federal drug crimes if the defendant was previously convicted of a "felony drug offense." Burgess pled guilty to a federal crack charge carrying 10-year mandatory minimum sentence, but that mandatory minimum sentence was doubled to 20 years based on a prior South Carolina misdemeanor drug conviction that carried a maximum sentence of two years...

Baze v. Rees: Lethal Injection Cocktail Constitutional

Posted on April 16, 2008
In a fractured opinion, a plurality of the Court held that the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution does not prohibit the most common method of lethal injection, involving a three-drug cocktail, sodium thiopental, pancuronium bromide, and potassium chloride...

Medellin v. Texas - International Law vs. States' Rights

Posted on March 25, 2008
In the Case Concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mex. v. U.S.), I.C.J. No. 128 Judgment of Mar. 31, 2004), the International Court of Justice determined that 51 named Mexican nationals, including petitioner, were entitled to receive review and reconsideration of their convictions and sentences through the judicial process in the United States without regard for procedural defaults...

Snyder v. Louisiana - Successful Batson Challenge

Posted on March 13, 2008
Allen Snyder, a black man, was convicted and sentenced to death by an all-white jury in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, for the fatal stabbing of his wife?s male companion. Prior to trial, the prosecutor reported to the media that this was his ?O.J. Simpson case...

Boulware v. United States - Return of Capital Defense to Tax Evasion

Posted on March 03, 2008
Boulware was charged with criminal tax evasion and filing a false income tax return for diverting funds from a closely held corporation, of which he was the president, founder, and controlling shareholder. One element of tax evasion under 26 U. S. C. §7201 is ?the existence of a tax deficiency...

Watson: Not "Use" to Barter Drugs for Gun

Posted on December 10, 2007
In Watson v. U.S., No. 06-571 (Dec. 10, 2007), the Supreme Court held that a person who trades drugs for a gun does not "use" a firearm and is therefore not guilty of violating 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), which criminalizes use of a firearm during and in connection with a drug trafficking offense...

Gall: Reasonableness Review is Deferential

Posted on December 10, 2007
In Gall v. U.S., No. 06-7949 (Dec. 10, 2007), the Supreme Court held that while the extent of the difference between a particular sentence and the recommended Guideline range is relevant, courts of appeal must review all sentences ? whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside the Guidelines range ? under a deferential abuse of discretion standard...

Kimbrough: Crack Guidelines Advisory Only

Posted on December 10, 2007
In Kimbrough v. U.S., No. 06-6330 (Dec. 10, 2007), the Supreme Court held that under Booker the crack cocaine Guidelines, like all other Guidelines, are advisory only. A district judge therefore may consider the crack/powder disparity when sentencing crack cocaine offenders, and impose a below-Guidelines sentence if a within-Guidelines sentence is "greater than necessary" to serve the objectives of sentencing set forth at 18 U...

Logan: Civil Rights Never Lost are not "Restored"

Posted on December 04, 2007
In Logan v. U.S., No. 06-6911 (Dec. 4, 2007), the Supreme Court held that the ACCA provision which instructs sentencing courts to disregard a prior conviction if a defendant?s civil rights have been "restored" does not apply if, under the state law governing the prior conviction, the defendant retained his civil rights at all times...

Government Brief Filed in Gall

Posted on August 23, 2007
The Solicitor General has filed the government's brief in Gall, arguing that Mr. Gall's probationary sentence is unreasonably lenient under proportionality review, which it contends is the appropriate standard in appeals of below-guidelines sentences.

Gall & Kimbrough Briefs Filed

Posted on July 27, 2007
A host of remarkable briefs have been filed in the two pending sentencing guidelines cases addressing reasonableness review, Gall v. United States and Kimbrough v. United States. I have a number of them, which you can access for your weekend reading pleasure...

Panetti: Remand for Ford Mental Illness Review

Posted on July 05, 2007
In Panetti v. Quarterman, No. 06-6407 (June 28, 2007), the Supreme Court reversed the denial of habeas relief to a Texas inmate sentenced to death despite his well-documented history of mental illness.The Court first held that the limitation on "second and successive" habeas petitions did not require dismissal of Panetti?s claim that his mental illness rendered him incompetent to be executed, because Panetti raised the claim as soon as it was ripe ? and it became ripe after he had filed his first habeas petition...

Rita: Presumption of Reasonableness for Guideline Sentences

Posted on June 21, 2007
In Rita v. U.S., No. 06-5754 (June 21, 2007), the Supreme Court held that a court of appeals may apply a presumption of reasonableness to a district court sentence within the Guidelines.The Court noted that the presumption was not binding, and did not reflect judicial deference to the fact-finding leeway of an expert agency...

Brendlin: Passenger has 4th Amendment standing

Posted on June 18, 2007
In Brendlin v. California, No. 06-8120 (June 18, 2007), the Supreme Court held that when police make a traffic stop, a passenger in the car, like the driver, is seized for Fourth Amendment purposes and may challenge the stop?s constitutionality.The defendant was a passenger in a vehicle that had been pulled over without reason to believe that it was being operated unlawfully, that is, without probably cause or reasonable suspicion to make the stop...

Four New Death Cases: Schriro, Smith, Brewer & Abdul-Kabir

Posted on May 22, 2007
In Schriro v. Landrigan, No. 05-1575 (May 22, 2007), the Supreme Court held that the district court did not err in denying an evidentiary hearing regarding whether counsel gave ineffective assistance at a capital sentencing, when the defendant opposed counsel putting on mitigating evidence and interrupted counsel when he attempted to do so...

James: Florida Attempted Burglary is Violent Felony

Posted on April 20, 2007
In James v. U.S., No. 05-9264 (April 18, 2006), the Supreme Court held that the offense of attempted burglary, as defined by Florida law, qualifies as a "violent felony" for purposes of the 15-year mandatory minimum of 18 U.S.C. § 924(e).The Court noted that the statutory definition of "violent felony" did not exclude attempt offenses...

Whorton: No Retroactivity for Crawford

Posted on March 05, 2007
In Whorton v. Bockting, No. 05-595 (Feb. 28, 2007), the Supreme Court held that it gave no retroactive effect to its Confrontation Clause holding in Crawford v. Washington that testimonial statements of witnesses absent from a trial are admissible only where the declarant is unavailable and only where the defendant has had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the witness...

Lawrence: AEDPA not tolled during federal certiorari appeal of final state decision

Posted on February 20, 2007
In Lawrence v. Florida, No. 05-8820 (Feb. 20, 2007), the Supreme Court affirmed the Eleventh Circuit?s holding that a federal habeas petitioner?s habeas petition was untimely, because the time after the final determination of the Florida state courts, during which the petitioner was seeking (unsuccessfully) certiorari review in the United States Supreme Court, did not toll the one-year statute of limitations for federal habeas petitions...

Rita and Claiborne Reply Briefs Filed

Posted on February 12, 2007
With oral argument just days away, petitioners filed their reply briefs, which can be found here: Rita and Claiborne.

Government & Friends File Rita & Claiborne Briefs

Posted on January 22, 2007
On the heels of the Court's Cunningham decision earlier today, the Solicitor General filed the government's briefs in Rita and Claiborne. In case the SG missed something, the U.S. Sentencing Commission weighed in, adding its self-defense by filing an amicus brief for both cases...

Cunningham: California's DSL Struck Down

Posted on January 22, 2007
In Cunningham v. California, No. 06-6551 (Jan. 22, 2007), the Supreme Court held that California?s determinate sentencing law (DSL) violates the rule of Apprendi, because it authorizes a judge to enhance a sentence based on aggravating facts found by the judge, not the jury...

Jones v. Bock: PLRA Exhaustion

Posted on January 22, 2007
Jones v. Bock, 127 S. Ct. ___ (Jan. 22, 2007). Local circuit rules that require an inmate to plead and prove exhaustion in his initial complaint are not required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Indeed, Chief Justice Roberts wrote for a unanimous Court, such rules exceed the permissible scope of the PLRA because the exhaustion question is not a pleading requirement, but rather it is an affirmative defense to be raised first by the respondent...

Brendlin v. California - 4th Amendment cert grant

Posted on January 19, 2007
Seizure of Passenger in Vehicle During Traffic Stop. Brendlin v. California, 127 S. Ct. ___ (cert. granted Jan. 19, 2007); decision below at 136 P.3d 845 (Cal. 2006) (en banc). Defendant was a passenger in a vehicle driven by another that was subjected to a traffic stop...

Joseph v. US: Jury Consideration of Voluntariness of Confession

Posted on January 16, 2007
Joseph v. United States, 127 S. Ct. ___ (cert. denied Jan. 16, 2007); decision below unpublished (3d Cir. 2006). The district court admitted defendant?s confession at trial, but refused to give a jury instruction required by the third sentence of 18 U...

Burton v. Stewart: Retroactivity of Blakely

Posted on January 09, 2007
Burton v. Stewart, 127 S. Ct. ___ (2007). Burton received an exceptional sentence of 258 months above the 305 month ceiling of the statutory range. The sentence became final after Apprendi v. New Jersey but before Blakely v. Washington. Questions presented: (1) Is the holding in Blakely a new rule or is it dictated by Apprendi? (2) If Blakely is a new rule, does its requirement that facts resulting in an enhanced statutory maximum be proved beyond a reasonable doubt apply retroactively? Rather than answer these questions, the Court issued a per curiam decision holding that the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear the habeas corpus petition because it had not been filed as required by the AEDPA gateway; this was a second or successive petition for which permission had not been granted under 28 U...

US v. Resendiz-Ponce: Omitting Elements from Indictment

Posted on January 09, 2007
United States v. Resendiz-Ponce, 127 S. Ct. ___ (Jan. 9, 2007). Cert petition by government to determine whether the omission of an element of a criminal offense from a federal indictment can constitute harmless error. Here, the indictment for unlawful reentry failed to allege an overt act, an essential element of the crime, and Ninth Circuit precedent therefore dictated that the conviction must be reversed even though the government presented uncontested proof of an overt act at trial...

Topside Rita and Claiborne Briefs Filed

Posted on December 19, 2006
The briefing has begun in Rita v. U.S. and Claiborne v. U.S., two pending cases in which the Court will decide if guidelines sentences are presumptively correct and if sentences below the guidelines require extraordinary circumstances. I've collected and stored the topside briefs online -- they are terrific resources for ongoing sentencing litigation as we await argument and decision later this Term...

Carey v. Musladin: Absence of Clear Binding Precedent to Allow Habeas

Posted on December 11, 2006
Carey v. Musladin, 127 S. Ct. 649 (2006). Federal court granted habeas relief in a state first degree murder case because the courtroom spectators included three family members of the victim who wore buttons depicting the deceased family of murder victim...

Lopez v. Gonzales: State Drug Crimes as Aggravated Felonies

Posted on December 05, 2006
Lopez v. Gonzales, 126 S. Ct. 2557 (2006). Lopez was convicted in South Dakota for helping someone else possess cocaine, which under South Dakota state law was the same as possessing cocaine, a felony under S.D. law, and sentenced to a five-year term of incarceration...

Clark v. Arizona: Exclusion of Mental Capacity Evidence

Posted on June 30, 2006
In Clark v. Arizona, No. 05-5966 (June 28, 2006), the Supreme Court held that Arizona did not violate Due Process when it narrowed the insanity test to inquire only whether the defendant had the capacity to tell right from wrong.The Arizona legislature amended its insanity statute to drop the portion of the definition of insanity relating to cognitive capacity, that is the ability of the defendant to know what he was doing, leaving only the moral test of whether he could distinguish right from wrong ? thereby amending the prior M?Naghten test...