No Oral Argument for Michigan v. Jackson Rule: As Kent noted earlier today the U.S. Supreme Court has denied the petitioner's request for reargument in Montejo v. Louisiana. Tony Mauro has this post on the decision at Blog of Legal Times. Montejo asks whether an indigent defendant must affirmatively accept the appointment of
counsel to preclude future police interrogation in the absence the
attorney. Michigan v. Jackson, the Supreme Court precedent relied on by the petitioner, holds that once an indigent defendant requests appointment of counsel, officers cannot re-initiate contact to ask if he wants waive the right to have counsel present during questioning. Back in March, the Supreme Court asked the parties to brief whether Michigan v. Jackson should be overruled. Monejo's new attorney, Paul Smith of Jenner & Block, asked the Court to allow reargument on the issue. According to Mauro, Smith isn't too worried that the Court denied rehearing. Smith also speculates that the Court denied rehearing because oral arguments for the term are scheduled to end this week.
Unreasonable Delay in Obtaining Warrant: Orin Kerr posts at Volokh Conspiracy on the Eleventh Circuit's decision to vacate a defendant's conviction last week in United States v. Mitchell. According to Kerr, the case involved child pornography evidence obtained from a computer hard drive after the defendant had admitted to downloading child pornography onto his computer. While Mitchell acknowledged the pornography was on his computer, he did not consent to allow search of his computer. The police took his hard drive anyway, and then waited 3 weeks to obtain a warrant. Evidence was finally found on the computer, and Mitchell eventually pled guilty to downloading and possessing images of child pornography, but the Eleventh Circuit has held that such evidence should have been suppressed. According to the Eleventh Circuit, the initial seizure was justified, but the police needed to obtain a warrant in a reasonable period of time to justify the continued detention and search. Three weeks was just too long. Kerr reports that this is consistent with the Supreme Court's decision in Illinois v. MacArthur.
Fifth Circuit Hears Halliburton Rape Case: At Wall Street Journal Blog, Ashby Jones reports on oral arguments in the Fifth Circuit in Jamie Leigh Jones v. Halliburton. Jamie Leigh Jones claims that she was raped by co-workers while working for Halliburton Co. in Iraq. She sued Halliburton in 2005, and Halliburton countered with a claim that Jones had signed an arbitration agreement covering all claims against the company. Jones wants a federal court jury to hear the issue instead. The federal court judge found in favor of Jones, believing "that plaintiff's bedroom should [not] be considered the workplace, even though her housing was provided by her employer." His decision allows her to take her case to trial.
Unreasonable Delay in Obtaining Warrant: Orin Kerr posts at Volokh Conspiracy on the Eleventh Circuit's decision to vacate a defendant's conviction last week in United States v. Mitchell. According to Kerr, the case involved child pornography evidence obtained from a computer hard drive after the defendant had admitted to downloading child pornography onto his computer. While Mitchell acknowledged the pornography was on his computer, he did not consent to allow search of his computer. The police took his hard drive anyway, and then waited 3 weeks to obtain a warrant. Evidence was finally found on the computer, and Mitchell eventually pled guilty to downloading and possessing images of child pornography, but the Eleventh Circuit has held that such evidence should have been suppressed. According to the Eleventh Circuit, the initial seizure was justified, but the police needed to obtain a warrant in a reasonable period of time to justify the continued detention and search. Three weeks was just too long. Kerr reports that this is consistent with the Supreme Court's decision in Illinois v. MacArthur.
Fifth Circuit Hears Halliburton Rape Case: At Wall Street Journal Blog, Ashby Jones reports on oral arguments in the Fifth Circuit in Jamie Leigh Jones v. Halliburton. Jamie Leigh Jones claims that she was raped by co-workers while working for Halliburton Co. in Iraq. She sued Halliburton in 2005, and Halliburton countered with a claim that Jones had signed an arbitration agreement covering all claims against the company. Jones wants a federal court jury to hear the issue instead. The federal court judge found in favor of Jones, believing "that plaintiff's bedroom should [not] be considered the workplace, even though her housing was provided by her employer." His decision allows her to take her case to trial.
Leave a comment