U.S. Supreme Court Blog: Federal Judiciary

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Federal Judiciary Blogs

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Federal Judiciary

U.S. Supreme Court Blog

Quick Summaries and Commentary on Supreme Court Cases

Post Frequency: 0.4/day

Last Entry: November 27, 2019 at 00:49:00

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 denied Jan. 16, 2007); decision below unpublished (3d Cir. 2006).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...

To access this complete feed in the blog feed reader login or register for free.

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...

Related Law Bulletins

French Court Finds Favorable Lease To Mosque Violates Church-State Limits
In France, the Marseille administrative court on Tuesday ordered r...

Cramer Hill eminent domain case reversed and remanded to trial court
In a reported case, Cramer Hill Residents Association v.&nbs...

John Ritter’s Family Takes $67 Million Wrongful Death Lawsuit to Court
Jury selection in the wrongful death of actor John Ritter began in...

Court Rules Zoning Change Inconsistent Township Master Plan
A Township Council amended its zoning ordinance to prohibit retail...