Notable Supreme Court Petition: On SCOTUSblog, Erin Miller posts details on "two noteworthy" Petitions for Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. The first case, Wong v. Smith (09-1031) asks whether habeas relief is available under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) when petitioner claims that a state judge unconstitutionally "coerced"
jurors to return a guilty verdict by identifying specific evidence in
the case as important and instructing them to consider it. The case involves the conviction of Anthony Smith for burglarizing the home of an aging couple in Sacramento, CA, robbing them, and forcing oral copulation on the wife. Smith had a co-defendant, James Hinex, and at the conclusion of their joint trial, the jury was deadlocked over the identity of who committed the sex offense. The judge brought to the jurors' attention the previously-admitted tape-recordings of defendants' post-arrest statements, and advised them to "consider and discuss how this comparison affects your finding" on the question of identity." Smith was convicted of the sex offense, and the California Court of Appeal concluded the judge had not coerced the jury. The Ninth Circuit disagreed, and granted Smith habeas relief.
Sentencing Cases in the Court: At Sentencing Law and Policy, Doug Berman reports that today, the Court heard oral argument on two fascinating and important "back end" sentencing cases: Dillon v. US (09-6338) and Barber v. Thomas (09-5201). SCOTUSblog has posted transcripts here. Dillon addresses whether, when considering a motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), the district court is bound by Sentencing Guidelines policy statements purporting to limit the availability of relief under Section 3582(c)(2). Barber, on the other hand, addresses what a single phrase within 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b)(1) means when used by the Bureau of Prisons to calculate "good time" sentence reductions for federal inmates.
Three Sixth Circuit Habeas Reversals This Term: Jonathan Adler notes on Volokh Conspiracy that the "Sixth Circuit is 0-3 in Habeas Cases This Term." With today's unanimous decision in Berghuis v. Smith, the Court held that the Sixth Circuit had again erroneously concluded that the lower court's decision involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. This is the third reversal of a Sixth Circuit decision granting a criminal defendant's habeas petition this term. The first two were Smith v. Spisak and Bobby v. Van Hook. With the exception of Justice Stevens' opinion concurring with part of Spisak's judgment, Van Hook and Spisak were also unanimous. In his post, Adler adds that the Court has yet to rule on two cases where the Sixth Circuit granted habeas relief, Renico v. Lett and Berghuis v. Thompkins. CJLF's Thompkins' brief can be found here.
Victim Fights for Right to Prosecute: Jordan Weissman reports on National Law Journal that tomorrow, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Robertson v. U.S. ex rel Watson, "a little-noticed U.S. Supreme Court case that they say could make it much harder for battered women and men to enforce restraining orders against their abusers." In Washington D.C., victims may bring criminal contempt charges when abusers infringe on a court order. Petitioner John Robertson seeks to change the rule, and overturn his conviction for violating a restraining order taken out by his ex-girlfriend, Watson. Robertson's lawyers argue that defendants have a "right to be prosecuted by the government," grounded in the Fifth Amendment's due process clause. Watson's lawyers disagree, they contend there's never been "an established common law requirement -- let alone a constitutional requirement -- that [this type of proceeding] be brought in name of the sovereign."
Sentencing Cases in the Court: At Sentencing Law and Policy, Doug Berman reports that today, the Court heard oral argument on two fascinating and important "back end" sentencing cases: Dillon v. US (09-6338) and Barber v. Thomas (09-5201). SCOTUSblog has posted transcripts here. Dillon addresses whether, when considering a motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), the district court is bound by Sentencing Guidelines policy statements purporting to limit the availability of relief under Section 3582(c)(2). Barber, on the other hand, addresses what a single phrase within 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b)(1) means when used by the Bureau of Prisons to calculate "good time" sentence reductions for federal inmates.
Three Sixth Circuit Habeas Reversals This Term: Jonathan Adler notes on Volokh Conspiracy that the "Sixth Circuit is 0-3 in Habeas Cases This Term." With today's unanimous decision in Berghuis v. Smith, the Court held that the Sixth Circuit had again erroneously concluded that the lower court's decision involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. This is the third reversal of a Sixth Circuit decision granting a criminal defendant's habeas petition this term. The first two were Smith v. Spisak and Bobby v. Van Hook. With the exception of Justice Stevens' opinion concurring with part of Spisak's judgment, Van Hook and Spisak were also unanimous. In his post, Adler adds that the Court has yet to rule on two cases where the Sixth Circuit granted habeas relief, Renico v. Lett and Berghuis v. Thompkins. CJLF's Thompkins' brief can be found here.
Victim Fights for Right to Prosecute: Jordan Weissman reports on National Law Journal that tomorrow, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Robertson v. U.S. ex rel Watson, "a little-noticed U.S. Supreme Court case that they say could make it much harder for battered women and men to enforce restraining orders against their abusers." In Washington D.C., victims may bring criminal contempt charges when abusers infringe on a court order. Petitioner John Robertson seeks to change the rule, and overturn his conviction for violating a restraining order taken out by his ex-girlfriend, Watson. Robertson's lawyers argue that defendants have a "right to be prosecuted by the government," grounded in the Fifth Amendment's due process clause. Watson's lawyers disagree, they contend there's never been "an established common law requirement -- let alone a constitutional requirement -- that [this type of proceeding] be brought in name of the sovereign."
Leave a comment