A number of interesting criminal cases were on the Supreme Court's conference list last Monday but are neither on Tuesday's list of cases taken for review nor today's (much longer) list of petitions denied. These cases are likely "relisted" for a second consideration at a later conference. Here are three of them:
United States v. Gonzalez
Docket: 10-82
Brief Summary: Following a traffic stop and subsequent vehicle search, Gonzalez was convicted of illegally possessing a firearm. At the time of the stop, the search was lawful under existing precedent. Pending final review of Gonzalez's conviction, however, the U.S. Supreme Court's decision Arizona v. Gant rendered the search illegal under the Fourth Amendment. The Ninth Circuit applied Gant and tossed the evidence under the exclusionary rule, rejecting the government's argument that the exclusionary rule should not apply because the police were acting in reasonable and good faith reliance on well-established Supreme Court precedent at the time of the search. This case therefore involves the fuzzy intersection of the purpose of the exclusionary rule and the retroactive application of new Fourth Amendment case law per United States v. Johnson.
Camreta v. Greene
Docket: 09-1454
Brief Summary: A child protective services caseworker and a deputy sheriff interviewed a young girl at her elementary school about suspected sexual abuse by the girl's father. The girl's mother filed a civil rights complaint, arguing the seizure and interrogation of the girl without probable cause, a warrant, or consent violated the girl's Fourth Amendment rights. The Ninth Circuit agreed, finding that the "special needs" exception to the warrant requirement did not apply to these circumstances (but that the caseworker and sheriff were protected by qualified immunity). In its Petition for Certiorari, the state argues that if the Ninth Circuit's decision is permitted to stand, child abuse investigations will be significantly hindered.
Wong v. Smith
Docket: 09-1031
Brief Summary: After a jury deadlocked several times on a sexual assault charge, the holdout juror wrote a note to the judge explaining he thought the state's DNA evidence linking Smith to the crime was tainted. In response, the presiding judge instructed the jury to consider several specific pieces of evidence, including the "consistencies and inconsistencies" of statements made by Smith and a co-conspirator. On habeas review, the Ninth Circuit held that the judge's "one-sided" description of the evidence was an impermissibly coercive instruction. The state argues in its Petition for Certiorari that there is no clearly established federal law upon which to grant Smith federal habeas relief.
United States v. Gonzalez
Docket: 10-82
Brief Summary: Following a traffic stop and subsequent vehicle search, Gonzalez was convicted of illegally possessing a firearm. At the time of the stop, the search was lawful under existing precedent. Pending final review of Gonzalez's conviction, however, the U.S. Supreme Court's decision Arizona v. Gant rendered the search illegal under the Fourth Amendment. The Ninth Circuit applied Gant and tossed the evidence under the exclusionary rule, rejecting the government's argument that the exclusionary rule should not apply because the police were acting in reasonable and good faith reliance on well-established Supreme Court precedent at the time of the search. This case therefore involves the fuzzy intersection of the purpose of the exclusionary rule and the retroactive application of new Fourth Amendment case law per United States v. Johnson.
Camreta v. Greene
Docket: 09-1454
Brief Summary: A child protective services caseworker and a deputy sheriff interviewed a young girl at her elementary school about suspected sexual abuse by the girl's father. The girl's mother filed a civil rights complaint, arguing the seizure and interrogation of the girl without probable cause, a warrant, or consent violated the girl's Fourth Amendment rights. The Ninth Circuit agreed, finding that the "special needs" exception to the warrant requirement did not apply to these circumstances (but that the caseworker and sheriff were protected by qualified immunity). In its Petition for Certiorari, the state argues that if the Ninth Circuit's decision is permitted to stand, child abuse investigations will be significantly hindered.
Wong v. Smith
Docket: 09-1031
Brief Summary: After a jury deadlocked several times on a sexual assault charge, the holdout juror wrote a note to the judge explaining he thought the state's DNA evidence linking Smith to the crime was tainted. In response, the presiding judge instructed the jury to consider several specific pieces of evidence, including the "consistencies and inconsistencies" of statements made by Smith and a co-conspirator. On habeas review, the Ninth Circuit held that the judge's "one-sided" description of the evidence was an impermissibly coercive instruction. The state argues in its Petition for Certiorari that there is no clearly established federal law upon which to grant Smith federal habeas relief.
Leave a comment