Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Academic Blogs -> The Faculty Lounge
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Academic
: The Faculty LoungeTwo Big S. Ct. Criminal Decisions
By Laura Appleman
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).
Missing Children
Databases and organizations
Unwed Fathers' Rights in Adoption
Landmark Cases in Adoption Law Shape Law with respect to Unwed Fathers
Criminal Law
If you have been arrested or mistreated by police you should speak to a criminal law attorney.
Health Insurers
Dictating Medical Decisions
Wal-Mart
Avoids Criminal Charges over Clerk's Death
Drug Pusher
Biovail agrees to pay $24.6 million settlement in criminal lawsuit.

Annual Survey of Supreme Court Decisions
The Clients Decisions, the Lawyers, and Chastisement to Insolent Pups
6th Cir. Published Decisions for Week of Jan. 21, 2008
NAF Decisions under the UDRP for March 1-7, 2008
NAF Decisions under the UDRP for March 08-14, 2008







