ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Academic Blogs -> The Faculty Lounge

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

Bookmark

Academic

: The Faculty Lounge

Two Big S. Ct. Criminal Decisions

By Laura Appleman

ADVERTISEMENTS

Supreme-court1 Well, the Supreme Court is starting off the New Year with a bang in the criminal procedure and sentencing arena.  This morning it handed down two big opinions, one involving the 4th Amendment, and one involving consecutive sentencing.

In Herring v. United States, the Court held that lower courts need not  suppress evidence obtained following an arrest when the arrest was made only due to erroneous information provided by another law enforcement agency.  As Tom Goldstein at Scotusblog points out,  what looks like a narrow 4th A. decision--whether the Court?s prior ruling that errors by judicial clerks do not trigger the exclusionary rule should be applied to police clerks--may well have much large implications.  This is due to the majority's broad reasoning:  "[W]e conclude that when police mistakes are the result of negligence such as that described here, rather than systemic error or reckless disregard of constitutional requirements,? the exclusionary rule does not apply.  (Slip op. at 12). 

In other words, this could mean that the Supreme Court has just extended the good faith exception for police officers--which would be a huge change in the law.

In Oregon v. Ice, the Court held that the Sixth Amendment does not bar judges from imposing consecutive sentences based on facts not found by a jury.  (full disclosure:  I helped prepare defendant's counsel for oral argument).  This holding, disappointing to many sentencing scholars, including myself, essentially determined that the scope of Blakely's 6th Amendment right to have facts determined by a jury does not reach to the trial court's decision to impose either consecutive or concurrent sentences for any one defendant.  The decision was a close one--5 to 4--with Justice Scalia, long a proponent of Blakely and jury rights in sentencing, authoring the dissent. 

I will have more to say on Oregon v. Ice after I have fully digested the opinion, since it involves not only sentencing but my home state of Oregon!

Full post as published by The Faculty Lounge on January 14, 2009 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles

Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0021 secs (from cache 10/31/26 13:01:49)