The U.S. Supreme Court has taken up a number of new cases for full briefing and argument. All the buzz is about the same-sex marriage cases, off-topic for this blog. There is one actual criminal case, McFadden v. United States, No. 14-378. The question presented is:
Whether, to convict a defendant of distribution of a controlled substance analogue - a substance with a chemical structure that is "substantially similar" to a schedule I or II drug and has a "substantially similar" effect on the user (or is believed or represented by the defendant to have such a similar effect) - the government must prove that the defendant knew that the substance constituted a controlled substance analogue, as held by the Second, Seventh, and Eighth Circuits, but rejected by the Fourth and Fifth Circuits.Kind of an interesting "mental state" question, but not a big case.
There is also a law-enforcement-related civil case, Kingsley v. Hendrickson, No. 14-6368:
Whether the requirements of a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 excessive force claim brought by a plaintiff who was a pretrial detainee at the time of the incident are satisfied by a showing that the state actor deliberately used force against the pretrial detainee and the use of force was objectively unreasonable.Finally, there is an immigration case of possible interest to criminal law practitioners, Mata v. Holder, No. 14-185:
Whether the Fifth Circuit erred in this case in holding that it has no jurisdiction to review petitioner's request that the Board of Immigration Appeals equitably toll the ninety-day deadline on his motion to reopen as a result of ineffective assistance of counsel under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2).An amicus was appointed to defend the decision of the Fifth Circuit. "The government agrees with petitioner that the court of appeals erred in denying his petition for review for lack of jurisdiction," says the petition-stage Brief for the Respondent.
Leave a comment