Below are the criminal and law-enforcement-related civil cases to be argued in the United States Supreme Court in the second session of the Term, October 30 through November 8. Links to the docket are provided and to the lower court decision in some cases. The docket includes a link to the Questions Presented (QP) page. Bear in mind that the QP is generally drafted by an advocate for one party (the one who lost in the court below) and not by the Court.

Monday, October 30: Jones v. Bock, No. 05-7058, and Williams v. Overton, No. 05-7142. The Court returns once again to the requirement of the Prison Litigation Reform Act that prisoners exhaust their administrative remedies before filing a federal civil rights lawsuit. The questions include whether a "mixed" petition with both exhausted and unexhausted claims must be dismissed and two questions on pleading requirements.

Tuesday, October 31: Lawrence v. Florida, No. 05-8820. The AEDPA statute of limitations, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d), is tolled while an "application for State post-conviction ... review ... is pending...." Does that include the time when a certiorari petition seeking U.S. Supreme Court review of the denial of the application is pending or could have been filed? If not, does equitable tolling apply to this statute and in the circumstances of this case? USCA11 said no.

Wednesday, November 1: Whorton v. Bockting, No. 05-595. Does Crawford v. Washington's rewrite of the Court's Confrontation Clause jurisprudence apply retroactively to overturn a final conviction correctly decided by the state supreme court under the rule in effect at the time? USCA9 said yes, 2-1.

Tuesday, November 7: James v. United States, No. 04-9264. Does a prior conviction of attempted burglary qualify as a "violent felony" within the meaning of the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)? USCA 11 said yes.

   Burton v. Waddington, No. 05-9222. Does Blakely v. Washington's expansion of the kinds of sentencing factors that must be proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt apply retroactively to cases already final on appeal when that case was decided? USCA9 said no in an unpublished opinion, based on its 2005 precedent in Schardt v. Payne.