The U.S. Supreme Court took up three new cases this morning, to be briefed over the next several months and argued about November or so. The orders list is here. There is one minor federal criminal procedure case, one First Amendment case, and one on civil suits against prosecutors. The Court turned down cases on Bible-reading jurors and animal cruelty movies, as well as the return of the Brendlin case, a search case whether possible implications for the pending Arizona v. Gant.
Bloate v. United States, No. 08-728, USCA8 case 07-2357. Can a defendant ask for more time, receive it, and then turn around and demand dismissal under the Speedy Trial Act? One would think not, and the D.C., 1st, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, and 11th Circuits think not, but 4th and 6th read the statute in a literal way to produce this odd result.
United States v. Stevens, No. 08-769, USCA3 case 05-2497. 18 U.S.C. ยง48(a) provides: "Whoever knowingly creates, sells, or possesses a depiction of animal cruelty with the intention of placing that depiction in interstate or foreign commerce for commercial gain, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both." Can Congress do that, or does making movies about torturing animals come within "the freedom of speech" that Congress may not "abridg[e]"?
Pottawattamie County v. McGhee, No. 08-1065, USCA8 case 07-1453. This case involves civil suits against prosecutors after defendants obtained a reversal of their convictions for Brady violations. The case features an unusual brief on the law enforcement side by Tom Goldstein of Akin Gump and SCOTUSblog, representing amici NAAUSA and NDAA.
Cases on SCOTUSblog's "petitions to watch" list turned down today include Parr v. United States, No. 08-757 on criminalization of threats and Oliver v. Quarterman, No. 08-833, on jurors consulting their Bibles during sentencing deliberations. Personally, I didn't consider Oliver a good candidate for certiorari. The Supreme Court recognizes, I believe, that its micromanagement of capital sentencing procedure on the pretense of interpreting the Eighth Amendment has been a failure. All of the recent, major defense wins in this area have been on substantive limits. The creation of more procedural limitations is not on the agenda.
The Court also declined a second look at Brendlin v. California. Prior opinion here. Cal. Supreme Court opinion on remand here. From the latter:
United States v. Stevens, No. 08-769, USCA3 case 05-2497. 18 U.S.C. ยง48(a) provides: "Whoever knowingly creates, sells, or possesses a depiction of animal cruelty with the intention of placing that depiction in interstate or foreign commerce for commercial gain, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both." Can Congress do that, or does making movies about torturing animals come within "the freedom of speech" that Congress may not "abridg[e]"?
Pottawattamie County v. McGhee, No. 08-1065, USCA8 case 07-1453. This case involves civil suits against prosecutors after defendants obtained a reversal of their convictions for Brady violations. The case features an unusual brief on the law enforcement side by Tom Goldstein of Akin Gump and SCOTUSblog, representing amici NAAUSA and NDAA.
Cases on SCOTUSblog's "petitions to watch" list turned down today include Parr v. United States, No. 08-757 on criminalization of threats and Oliver v. Quarterman, No. 08-833, on jurors consulting their Bibles during sentencing deliberations. Personally, I didn't consider Oliver a good candidate for certiorari. The Supreme Court recognizes, I believe, that its micromanagement of capital sentencing procedure on the pretense of interpreting the Eighth Amendment has been a failure. All of the recent, major defense wins in this area have been on substantive limits. The creation of more procedural limitations is not on the agenda.
The Court also declined a second look at Brendlin v. California. Prior opinion here. Cal. Supreme Court opinion on remand here. From the latter:
Thus, despite the unlawfulness of the initial traffic stop, the facts of this encounter demonstrate that the drug paraphernalia found on defendant's person and in the car was not the fruit of the unlawful seizure. The police searched defendant's person and the vehicle only after they discovered a valid outstanding warrant for his arrest. In connection with that arrest, the police were authorized to conduct a search incident to it.2Does denial of certiorari in Brendlin presage that there will be no major change in the law in Gant?
2. The United States Supreme Court will revisit the scope of this doctrine in Arizona v. Gant, No. 07-542, certiorari granted February 25, 2008.
Leave a comment