| Baze v. Rees |
4/16/08 |
Win |
Death penalty: Lethal injection |
| U.S. Supreme Court case to review a legal challenge to Kentucky’s lethal injection protocol by two double-murderers facing execution. Ralph Baze shot and killed a county sheriff and his deputy in 1992. Thomas Bowling shot and killed a Lexington couple and wounded their two-year-old son in 1990. In a federal lawsuit, they, along with several anti-death penalty groups, claim that the lethal injection process used in 37 states is unconstitutionally cruel and unusual punishment. CJLF joined the case to argue that the Constitution does not guarantee condemned murderers a painless execution and that, properly administered, the lethal injection process is painless. Procedures now in place in Kentucky and elsewhere are sufficient to minimize the chance of error. The Foundation also argues that the delays caused by legal challenges to a method of execution that pro-criminal groups insisted was humane 20 years ago, adds to the pain and suffering of the families of murder victims and denies justice to the law-abiding public. The Supreme Court agreed, and executions should resume shortly in most states. [CJLF brief in PDF.] |
| Medellin v. Texas |
3/25/08 |
Win |
International law: Vienna Convention |
| U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding the conviction and death sentence of Jose Medellin, a Mexican national convicted of the 1993 rape and murder of two teenaged girls in Houston. The case involved Medellin’s claim that when the police failed to notify the Mexican Consulate following his arrest, they violated an international treaty signed in 1963. He also argued that the Texas courts’ rejection of his claim violated a 2004 World Court decision and that decision required that the judgment be set aside. CJLF joined the case on behalf of one of the murdered girl’s parents to argue that this murderer’s international rights claim had already been considered and rejected by the Texas Courts, and that no further delay of his sentence was required. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Texas court. [CJLF brief in PDF.] |
| Allen v. Siebert |
11/5/07 |
Win |
Habeas corpus: Limitations, tolling |
| U.S. Supreme Court decision reinstating the death sentence of Alabama serial murderer, Daniel Siebert. Siebert had admitted to, and ultimately been convicted of the murders of Sherri Weathers and her son, as well as the murder of Linda Jarman. Siebert was sentenced to death for both murders in 1987. In 1992, after both convictions had been affirmed by the Alabama Supreme Court, Siebert filed state petitions for habeas relief. He filed his state petitions three months past the state filing deadline, and the circuit county court rejected both petitions. In 2001, Siebert filed federal petitions for habeas corpus review. The petitions were dismissed as they were filed after the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) filing deadline for habeas corpus petitions had lapsed. In 2005, while Siebert’s appeal of the dismissal was pending in the Eleventh Circuit, the U.S. Supreme Court held that “time limits, no matter their form, are filing conditions,” and an untimely state petition does not suspend federal time limits. Two years later, a panel of the Eleventh Circuit ruled that Alabama’s time limits did not prevent federal court review of Siebert’s claims. CJLF argued as an amicus curiae that the Eleventh Circuit’s ruling was “demonstrably erroneous” and summary reversal was appropriate. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed, and stated, in a 7-2 decision, “[w]hen a postconviction petition is untimely under state law, that is the end of the matter . . . .” The decision affirmed the Supreme Court’s 2005 decision in Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (2005). [CJLF brief in PDF.] |
| People v. Taylor |
10/23/07 |
Loss |
Death penalty: NY Law |
| New York’s Court of Appeals upheld its 2004 People v. LaValle decision that a jury instruction that was a part New York’s sentencing scheme was invalid because the instruction might influence a jury to recommend the death sentence instead of deadlocking. Under the New York scheme, a deadlocked jury would allow the judge to sentence the defendant to 20 to 25 years with the possibility of parole. Before his trial, Taylor challenged the sentencing scheme. Taylor had been convicted for the robbery of a Wendy’s franchise in Flushing, New York and the murder of five Wendy’s employees in 2000. Taylor was sentenced to death under the New York death penalty law that required the challenged instruction. On appeal to the New York Court of Appeals the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation argue that New York’s entire death penalty scheme should not be overturned because of one jury instruction. CJLF argued the Court of Appeals should give effect to the Legislature’s intent, and remove the improper instruction while leaving the other provisions of New York’s death penalty statute in place. CJLF argued the New York law contained a severability provision for the purpose of allowing constitutional provisions to remain in effect while striking any unconstitutional provisions. The New York Court of Appeals disagreed. The Court found the jury instruction to be “inextricably interwoven with the sentencing procedure and necessary to effectuate the legislature’s intent.” The Court held the death penalty sentencing statute to be unconstitutional on its face and vacated Taylor’s death sentence. Taylor’s case was remitted for resentencing. [CJLF brief in PDF.] |
United States v. Lujan
United States v. Meier |
10/2/07
9/28/07 |
Win |
DNA Testing: Suspicionless searches |
| In companion cases Lujan and Meier, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected the petitioner’s claims that Oregon’s DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 (DNA Act) violated Fourth Amendment rights. The Ninth Circuit also rejected Lujan’s claims that Oregon’s Act violated the ex post facto clause of the constitution, was an unconstitutional bill of attainder, and that the Act violated the Constitution’s separation of powers principles. Both Lujan and Meier claimed the Oregon Act violated their Fourth Amendment rights because it authorized a probation officer to demand the collection of a blood sample as a condition to a convicted criminal’s supervised release. Petitioners had pled guilty to one count of unarmed bank robbery in May 1999. They were each sentenced to prison time and three years supervised release. Oregon law stated supervised release was subject to standard conditions, including those conditions imposed by the DNA Act. CJLF’s amicus brief argued the DNA Act should survive petitioners’ Fourth Amendment challenges. CJLF argued that as a convicted criminal subject to supervised release, petitioners had a diminished expectation of privacy. The United States Supreme Court had stated a probationer’s diminished privacy was part of society’s special need to supervise probationers. In its brief, CJLF urged that when examining society’s special need, a court should consider circumstances such as: the convicts’ substantially diminished expectation of privacy; the minimal intrusiveness of blood testing; and the enormous benefit to society of maintaining DNA databanks of convicted murderers and sex offenders. The Ninth Circuit agreed and relied on its 2004 decision in United States v. Kincaide, 379 F.3d 813, that a “totality of the circumstances” could justify compulsory DNA collection. [CJLF brief in Lujan.] [CJLF brief in Meier.] |
| Getsy v. Mitchell |
7/25/07 |
Win |
Habeas corpus: Clearly established law |
| United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit case involving hired hit man Jason Getsy. An Ohio jury found Getsy guilty of the contract killing of Ann Serafino, whose son had a business dispute with John Santine. Getsy was sentenced to death. A separate jury convicted Santine of murder, but Getsy's confession was not admissible in that trial, the jury did not find murder for hire had been proved, and Santine was not sentenced to death. A panel of the Sixth Circuit found that this difference in sentences required that Getsy's death sentence be overturned. CJLF submitted a brief arguing that no current rule of law authorizes a federal court to overturn a state sentence on this basis, and Congress has forbidden lower federal courts from making up new rules in such cases. The full Sixth Circuit agreed. [CJLF brief in PDF.] |
| People v. Hernandez/Sandoval |
7/19/07 |
Win |
Jury trial: Sentencing factors |
| Companion cases before the California Supreme Court involving criminals who received upper-term sentences under the state’s determinant sentencing law. The law had allowed a trial judge to sentence criminals to one of a range of three terms (such as 2, 4, or 6 years), based upon mitigating or aggravating factors related to the crime or the defendant. In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, in Cunningham v. California, that aggravating factors used to make a defendant eligible for the upper term must be found by a jury, rather than the judge. The state Supreme Court is reviewing these two cases to determine the extent that the Cunningham decision disrupts California sentencing. Joel Hernandez and Aida Sandoval were both convicted of felonies and sentenced to upper terms. Hernandez had a number of prior felonies, which the judge considered during sentencing for reckless driving and evading a police officer. Sandoval did not have priors, but the judge gave her an upper term and required her to serve her sentences consecutively, after considering the particularly cold-blooded nature of the circumstances of her crimes of voluntary manslaughter which left two people dead and her attempt to kill a third victim. CJLF argues that the Cunningham decision does allow judges to base an upper-term sentence upon a defendant’s prior convictions and require that multiple sentences be served consecutively. Further, once a single aggravating factor has been properly found, the judge may find and consider additional factors in deciding whether to impose the upper term. In deciding Sandoval's case and another case, the California Supreme Court agreed with each of the major points of CJLF's brief. Hernandez's case is still pending. [CJLF brief in PDF.] |
| Panetti v. Quarterman |
6/28/07 |
Loss |
Death penalty: Competency |
| U.S. Supreme Court case involving a Texas double-murderer’s claim that he cannot be executed because he is mentally ill. In 1992, the defendant, Scott Panetti, murdered his wife's parents with a sawed-off shotgun in front of his wife and three-year-old daughter, who had moved in with the victims to escape his violent behavior. Following his arrest, he confessed to the murders. After being found mentally competent to stand trial, Panetti insisted on representing himself. He presented an insanity defense, claiming that an alternate personality named “Sarge” committed the murders. After his conviction, sentence, and multiple appeals, the state court found him competent to be executed. The federal District Court and Court of Appeals later affirmed his competency and his death sentence. Panetti, along with the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, the American Bar Association, and the American Psychological Association, is seeking a decision to broaden the standard for incompetence for execution. The present standard requires that the murderer be able to understand that he committed the murder and will be executed for it, which the federal court found Panetti does. At the request of the Texas Solicitor General, CJLF has joined the case to argue for a decision to maintain the current standard. The Court sent the case back to the lower courts to reconsider, but it did not adopt the sweeping rule proposed by the ABA and others. [CJLF brief in PDF.] |
| Fry v. Pliler |
6/11/07 |
Win |
Habeas Corpus: Harmless Error |
| The United States Supreme Court affirmed a murderer’s conviction. The defendant, drug dealer John Fry, was convicted on strong evidence of killing a Vacaville couple in 1992. On appeal, he claimed that his conviction was invalid because a witness who claimed that her cousin admitted to killing two people was not allowed to testify. The state court rejected the claim, finding that in light of the weakness of this evidence, excluding it was within the trial judge’s discretion. The federal courts reviewed the claim on habeas corpus applying a standard of review announced by the Supreme Court’s 1993 decision in Brecht v. Abrahamson (won by CJLF) and also concluded that the exclusion was error, but harmless. Before the Supreme Court, Fry argued that the Brecht standard is too difficult for him to meet and should not apply to his case. CJLF joined the case to argue for a decision reaffirming the existing standard. The Supreme Court, unanimous on this point, agreed. [CJLF brief in PDF.] |
| Roper v. Weaver |
5/21/07 |
Draw |
Due Process: Prosecutor Argument |
| United States Supreme Court case to review a federal Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling which overturned the death sentence of William Weaver. A Jackson County, Missouri jury found Weaver guilty on substantial evidence of murdering Charles Taylor, a key witness in a federal drug case in July 1987. Among Weaver's claims on appeal was that in closing argument at his sentencing hearing the prosecutor made allegedly improper statements which invalidated his sentence. Specifically, the prosecutor told the sentencing jury that he supported the death penalty, that it was their duty, like soldiers, to sentence Weaver to death, and that a death sentence would deter others from committing murder. The Missouri Supreme Court denied the claim and upheld Weaver's conviction and sentence. In 2001, a federal district judge accepted the claim and overturned the sentence. That ruling was affirmed by the Court of Appeals last year. CJLF joined the state's appeal of that ruling to argue that the federal law prohibited the Eighth Circuit court from overturning the Missouri Supreme Court decision unless it misapplied clearly established law or Supreme Court precedent. CJLF pointed out that there is no Supreme Court precedent finding similar statements made in closing argument unconstitutional, and that the Missouri court's review of Weaver's claim was reasonable. The Court decided that, due to some unusual procedural issues in the case, it would not decide the question presented but instead dismiss the case as "improvidently granted." This decision effectively leaves the Eighth Circuit decision requiring a new sentencing hearing in place, but it does not set a Supreme Court precedent either way. [CJLF brief in PDF.] |
| Schriro v. Landrigan |
5/14/07 |
Win |
Death penalty |
| The United States Supreme Court reversed a 2006 Ninth Circuit ruling and reinstated the death sentence of a man who brutally murdered an acquaintance in Arizona, after escaping from an Oklahoma prison where he was serving time for an earlier murder. At his sentencing hearing, Jeffrey Landrigan announced in open court that he would not allow his attorney to present evidence mitigating his responsibility for the murder. Over a span of 15 years, three courts and a panel of the Ninth Circuit rejected the claim that his death sentence was unconstitutional because his attorney failed to present the evidence. However, a larger panel of the Ninth Circuit accepted it. Before the Supreme Court, CJLF argued that this violates an Act of Congress which forbids setting aside the facts found by the state courts unless the finality is unreasonable. The Supreme Court agreed in a 5-4 decision written by Justice Clarence Thomas. [CJLF brief in PDF.] |
| Smith v. Texas |
4/25/07 |
Loss |
Death penalty: Jury Instructions |
| U. S. Supreme Court decision to require the resentencing of LaRoyce Smith for the 1991 murder of a Dallas Taco Bell shift manager during a robbery. At trial, the defense attorney asked the judge to declare the Texas death penalty unconstitutional based upon a recent Supreme Court decision striking down the state’s sentencing jury instructions. The judge instead modified the jury instructions to accommodate a recent high court decision and asked the defense attorney if he wanted to suggest any improvements. The defense attorney did not and raised no objection to the new instructions. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals later ruled that the modified instructions complied with the recent decision. Later on habeas corpus, the same court denied Smith’s claim that the instruction violated a subsequent high court decision on jury instructions. In 2004, the U. S. Supreme Court reversed the Texas court decision and sent the case back for further review of Smith’s claim. A year later, the Texas court ruled that the disputed instruction did not require overturning his death sentence. When the Supreme Court agreed to hear Smith’s challenge to that ruling, CJLF joined the case to argue that the standard for review of trial errors not objected to by the defense has been historically left up to the state courts. The Court's 5 to 4 ruling held that the instruction given in this case did not satisfy its requirements and that the defense lawyer's initial objection was sufficient to preserve the issue. [CJLF
brief in PDF.] |
| Irons v. Carey |
3/6/07 |
Win |
Habeas corpus: Constitutionality of 2254(d)(1) |
| Federal Ninth Circuit decision overturning a district judge’s ruling ordering the parole of San Francisco murderer Carl Irons. In 1984, Irons received a 17-years-to-life prison sentence for shooting and stabbing a neighbor to death then dumping his body in the ocean. In 2001, Irons appealed a decision by the Board of Prison Terms to deny him parole. The state Court of Appeal reviewed the case, deciding that the Board’s decision was proper. When he appealed to the federal court, a magistrate was appointed to consider his claim. In 2004, the magistrate recommended that Irons be released based on Ninth Circuit precedent not accepted by the California courts or required by the U.S. Supreme Court. When a federal district judge adopted this recommendation and ordered Iron’s release, California appealed. CJLF joined the case to argue that federal rules adopted by Congress prohibit federal courts from overturning a state appeals court decision, unless the state court misapplied United States Supreme Court precedent. Because there was no misapplication of law or binding precedent by the California Court of Appeal, the federal judge had no authority to re-decide Irons’ claim. The Ninth Circuit decision agreed. [CJLF
brief in PDF.] |
| Whorton v. Bockting |
2/28/07 |
Win |
Habeas corpus: Retroactivity of Crawford |
| U. S. Supreme Court decision to reinstate the 1988 conviction of a Nevada child molester. A jury found Marvin Bockting guilty of engaging in various sex acts with his six-year-old stepdaughter. Because the child was too emotionally upset to testify, her tape-recorded description of the incident was introduced at trial in addition to medical evidence and Bockting’s incriminating statements. The applicable federal rules at the time allowed the child’s taped statement (hearsay) in lieu of her direct testimony. Two years later, the Supreme Court sent Bockting’s case back for a determination of the statement’s trustworthiness under a new standard. In 1993, the Nevada Court ruled that the statement was trustworthy. In 2003, the Supreme Court’s decision in Crawford v. Washington announced a new rule barring “testimonial” hearsay statements from trial. In February 2005, the Ninth Circuit applied the new rule retroactively to overturn Bockting’s conviction. Before the Supreme Court, CJLF argued that only rules fundamental to a fair trial can be applied retroactively and that the change in hearsay does not meet that standard. The high court agreed. [CJLF
brief in PDF.] |
| Burton v. Stewart |
1/9/07 |
Win |
Habeas corpus: Retroactivity of Blakely |
| United States Supreme Court decision utilizing CJLF arguments to reject a Washington sex offender's challenge to his sentence. The case involved a 47-year-sentence given to Lonnie Burton for the rape and robbery of a 15-year-old boy and the burglary of his parents' home. Because of Burton's multiple prior felony convictions, he qualified for an increased sentence under Washington law. While a challenge to his sentence was being reviewed by the state's highest court, Burton launched a separate challenge to his conviction in federal court on habeas corpus. Federal law generally allows only one round of habeas corpus review of a criminal judgment. After his state challenge failed, Burton asked the federal court to consider claims against his sentence on habeas corpus. The federal court agreed to hear the case, but refused to overturn his sentence. In 2004, after the U.S. Supreme Court announced new sentencing rules in Blakely v. Washington, Burton amended his appeal to claim that the Blakely ruling applied retroactively to invalidate his sentence. CJLF joined the high court review of the case to argue that the federal courts do not have jurisdiction to review Burton's second petition. The Court's decision said exactly that. [CJLF
brief in PDF.] |
| Carey v. Musladin |
12/11/06 |
Win |
Habeas corpus: Deference |
| United States Supreme decision utilizing CJLF arguments to reinstate the murder conviction of an abusive husband who gunned down his estranged wife's fiancé in front of several witnesses. In 2005, the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had overturned the murderer's sentence, ruling that it was unconstitutional for members of the victim's family to wear buttons with the deceased's picture on it during the trial. Prior to Mathew Musladin's trial, the judge refused Musladin's request to prevent Studer's family from wearing the photo buttons. Following his conviction, Musladin appealed, claiming that the buttons prejudiced the jury against him. The Court of Appeal denied the claim, as did the federal District Court on habeas corpus. But a divided panel of the federal Ninth Circuit reversed the lower court's decision and announced that the buttons violated Musladin's constitutional rights. When the Supreme Court agreed to hear the state's appeal, CJLF joined the case to point out that, once again, the Ninth Circuit's ruling sidestepped Congressional limits on its authority in order to overturn a reasonable state court decision. [CJLF
brief in PDF.] |
| Ex parte Medellin |
11/15/06 |
Win |
Habeas corpus: Vienna Convention |
| Texas Court of Criminal Appeals decision to deny further review of a foreign national's claim that the failure to notify the Mexican government of his arrest and trial for murdering two young girls invalidates his conviction and death sentence. In 2005, CJLF won a U.S. Supreme Court decision which rejected the murderer's request for federal court review of this claim. When the case was sent back to the Texas court, CJLF argued that the claim was reviewed and rejected in state court years ago and no further consideration is required. The Texas court rejected Medellin's claim on a different ground, and he has since asked the U.S. Supreme Court to take the case again. [CJLF
brief in PDF.] |
| Ayers v. Belmontes |
11/13/06 |
Win |
Death penalty: Catch-all instruction |
| United States Supreme Court decision reinstating the death sentence of a California man who, in 1981, beat a 19-year-old girl to death with a metal bar while burglarizing her home. The Court's decision overturned a 2005 Ninth Circuit ruling which announced that the instructions given to the murderer's sentencing jury 25 years ago were unconstitutional. CJLF joined the review of that ruling to argue that two prior Supreme Court decision (both won by CJLF) held that the jury instructions were proper. The Court held that they were. [CJLF
brief in PDF.] |
| Hamdan v. Rumsfeld |
6/29/06 |
Loss |
Habeas corpus: Detainee Treatment Act |
| The United States Supreme Court reversed a decision of the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and held that accused terrorists held in Guantanamo Bay could not be tried by military tribunal under current law. CJLF had argued that Congress had repealed the Court’s jurisdiction to hear this claim in the Detainee Treatment Act. [CJLF
brief in PDF.] |
| Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon |
6/28/06 |
Win |
Evidence: Vienna Convention |
| The United States Supreme Court affirmed a decision of the Oregon Supreme Court, upholding the conviction of Moises Sanchez-Llamas for the attempted murder of a police officer. Sanchez-Llamas made incriminating statements shortly after his arrest and before he was informed of his right to have the Mexican Consulate notified of his arrest. CJLF argued and the Court held that suppression of evidence is not an available remedy for enforcement of the Vienna Convention, the treaty that requires consular notification. Suppression of the truth in a criminal trial is a drastic remedy, it is not required by the treaty, and no other country suppresses evidence on this basis. Further, there is no causal connection between the treaty violation and the defendant’s statements, because he had no right to have the consulate notified before the interrogation. [CJLF
brief in PDF.] |
| Kansas v. Marsh |
6/26/06 |
Win |
Death penalty: Aggravating = Mitigating |
| The United States Supreme Court reversed a decision of the Kansas Supreme Court and reinstated the death penalty in Kansas. In 1995, Marsh murdered a young mother and set the house on fire, burning her 19-month-old daughter to death. The state court had held that the state’s death penalty statute was unconstitutional because it required a verdict of death in the extremely unlikely event that the jury found the aggravating and mitigating factors precisely equal. CJLF argued and the Court held that the Eighth Amendment does not prohibit a capital sentencing statute from operating in this manner. [CJLF
brief in PDF.] |
| Washington v. Recuenco |
6/26/06 |
Win |
Jury trial: Blakely & Harmless error |
| The United States Supreme Court reinstated the sentence of a Washington man who had threatened his wife with a gun, reversing a decision of the Supreme Court of Washington. Arturo Recuenco was convicted by a jury of assault, and the jury also found he had used a deadly weapon. The judge sentenced him to an additional three years for using a gun, in accordance with Washington law. After the trial, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Blakely v. Washington that sentence enhancement facts such as these must be found by the jury. The Washington Court of Appeals found that the error was harmless, because the jury found he had used a weapon and the gun was the only weapon at issue in the trial. The Washington Supreme Court reversed, holding that “Blakely error” can never be harmless. CJLF argued, and the U.S. Supreme Court held, that errors such as this do not require reversal where it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the result would have been the same in the absence of the error. [CJLF
brief in PDF.] |
| Samson v. California |
6/19/06 |
Win |
Search and Seizure: Parole search condition |
| California’s policy of requiring parolees to be subject to search at any time was upheld by the United States Supreme Court. The Fourth Amendment forbids unreasonable searches and seizures, and in most cases that means the police must have probable cause before conducting a search. However, there are exceptions, and even law-abiding people are subject to search when entering a courthouse or boarding an airplane. Convicted felons are subject to search at any time while in prison, and the state may reasonably require that prisoners released on parole, but still officially in custody, also be subject to search. [CJLF
brief in PDF.] |
| Hudson v. Michigan |
6/15/06 |
Win |
Search and Seizure: Knock-notice & excl. rule |
| The United States Supreme Court decided that evidence obtained in a valid search of a house, i.e., made pursuant to a warrant supported by probable cause, need not be suppressed because the police did not wait long enough to enter after announcing their presence. The opinion discussed the high social cost of suppressing the truth in criminal cases and decided that the exclusionary rule should not be extended into new territory. [CJLF
brief in PDF.] |
| Hill v. McDonough |
6/12/06 |
Loss |
Death penalty |
| In this case, the United States Supreme Court decided that a death row inmate could use a civil suit under the Civil Rights Act to challenge the state’s method of execution and thereby postpone his execution. CJLF had argued that invoking the Civil Rights Act for this purpose was an end-run around the limitations that Congress had placed on habeas corpus for the specific purpose of limiting such last-minute litigation. [CJLF
brief in PDF.] |
| Muntaqim v. Coombe |
6/1/06 |
Win |
Voting: Felon disenfranchisement |
| Convicted killers in New York prisons claimed that they had the right to vote, despite New York law, under the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965. CJLF joined an amicus brief to oppose this claim, noting the history of felon disenfranchisement laws nationwide before and after the Voting Rights Act. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit agreed. [CJLF
brief in PDF.] |
| Rice v. Collins |
1/18/06 |
Win |
Jury: Batson review |
| U. S. Supreme Court decision utilizing CJLF arguments
to overturn a Ninth Circuit ruling, which had found racial bias during jury selection
in the trial of a habitual criminal. The defendant, who had prior convictions of
forcible rape and robbery, received a 25 years to life sentence for his third felony
conviction on drug dealing charges. On appeal, he claimed that the prosecutor exercised
racial bias in excusing two black jurors, although two other blacks were accepted and
served. After the trial judge, the state appellate court and the federal District Court
found no bias, the Ninth Circuit discovered it in a 2003 ruling. When the Supreme Court
agreed to review the ruling, CJLF joined the case to argue that federal rules and
precedent require that the lower courts give great deference to the findings of the
trial judge regarding racial bias claims. The high court’s precedent-setting decision agreed.
[CJLF brief in PDF.] |
| Brown v. Sanders |
1/11/06 |
Win |
Death penalty: Invalid aggravators |
| U. S. Supreme Court decision utilizing CJLF arguments to
reinstate the death sentence of a man who beat a Bakersfield woman to death in 1981.
While California law requires a jury to find at least one special circumstance related
to a murder to qualify the killer for a death sentence, the jury in this case found four.
On appeal, the state Supreme Court ruled that two of the four special circumstances
were invalid, but the death sentence was upheld. In 2004, the Ninth Circuit overturned
the death sentence. Before the high court, CJLF argued that the sentence was proper
because two special circumstances remained valid, and all of the facts considered by the
jury were properly considered under unchallenged circumstances. The invalid circumstances
were therefore redundant and made no difference in this case. The Court’s decision
incorporated this argument. [CJLF
brief in PDF.] |
| Maryland v. Blake |
11/14/06 |
Draw |
Self-incrimination |
| U. S. Supreme Court dismissal of a case it had accepted for
review of a Maryland appeals court ruling suppressing incriminating statements made by a
juvenile accomplice to a murder. When the actual murderer (Tolbert) blamed his juvenile
accomplice for the killing, the accomplice (Blake), who had previously refused to talk to
police, agreed to make a statement “to set the record straight.” In his statement, Blake
admitted his involvement but identified the older Tolbert as the murderer. Prior to trial,
Blake’s attorney won a Maryland appeals court ruling that excluded Blake’s incriminating
statements, concluding that he had been badgered into making them. CJLF joined the high
court appeal of that ruling to argue that there was no evidence of badgering by police and
that Blake’s statements were voluntary. The Supreme Court dismissed the case without
deciding the issue. [CJLF brief in PDF.] |
| Chaker v. Crogan |
11/3/05 |
Loss |
Habeas corpus |
| Federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling
announcing that the U. S. Constitution protects intentionally made false
complaints against police officers as free speech. Darren Chaker, who has
filed at least ten lawsuits against San Diego police agencies, sought federal
habeas corpus review of his misdemeanor conviction for falsely claiming
excessive force by an officer. At the request of the San Diego District
Attorney, CJLF joined the Ninth Circuit review of this claim to argue that
federal habeas corpus rules do not allow a defendant to attack his conviction
after his sentence is completed and the First Amendment does not prevent states
from punishing those who intentionally lie in a formal complaint against a
police officer. CJLF will participate in the appeal of this bizarre Ninth
Circuit ruling. [CJLF
brief in PDF.] |
| Bell v. Thompson |
6/27/05 |
Win |
Habeas corpus |
| U. S. Supreme Court decision overturning a lower
court ruling to delay the execution of a Tennessee murderer. The case involved
the 1985 conviction and death sentence of habitual criminal Gregory Thompson for
the brutal robbery and stabbing murder of a Shelbyville woman. At trial,
Thompson failed to convince the jury that a “claimed” mental disorder diminished
his responsibility for the murder. After 18 years of appeals, he failed to
convince the federal District Court, federal appeals court, and the U. S.
Supreme Court, to consider the views of another psychiatrist. But after his
execution date was set, a federal judge on the same panel which had rejected
Thompson’s claim, decided to reconsider it on his own, without notifying the
state. Shortly before Thompson’s execution, the panel reversed itself to allow
review of his new psychiatric evidence. In a state appeal before the Supreme
Court, CJLF argued that the lower federal court abused its discretion and
manipulated the rules in order to delay the execution. The high court’s
decision agreed. [CJLF
brief in PDF.] |
| Gonzalez v. Crosby |
6/23/05 |
Win |
Habeas Corpus |
| U. S. Supreme Court decision to block a criminal’s
use of legal rules governing civil cases to gain additional review of claims
barred by rules governing criminal cases. In 1982, the defendant pled guilty
to three counts of armed robbery, one count of armed burglary, and one count
of armed kidnapping. His first appeal to challenge his conviction was raised
12 years later, in violation of Florida’s two-year statute of limitations.
After several courts denied review, he filed a motion under Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure to reopen the case, arguing that a recent appeals court ruling
in a different case allowed additional review of his claims. A federal appeals
court rejected the claim. When the Supreme Court agreed to hear the criminal’s
appeal, CJLF joined the case to argue for a decision announcing that Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure do not apply when they conflict with rules governing
criminal cases or when they are unsuited for such cases. The high court’s
decision agreed, denying criminals a new opportunity for extended review of
improperly raised claims. [CJLF
brief in PDF.] |
| Mayle v. Felix |
6/23/05 |
Win |
Habeas Corpus |
| U. S. Supreme Court decision upholding the limits
enacted by Congress on federal review of state convictions. The case involved
the 1995 conviction and life sentence of Jacoby Felix for the robbery and murder
of a California man. An act of Congress signed into law the year after Felix’s
conviction requires defendants to present claims of federal constitutional
violations within a specific time frame to prevent cases from dragging on for
decades as defendants dream up new claims. Last year, the federal Ninth Circuit
ruled that the time limit does not apply if the late claims are added to other
claims already before the court and if they fall into the general category of
challenging the legality of the trial. In the state’s appeal to the Supreme
Court, CJLF argued that the Ninth Circuit ruling created a loophole which, if
allowed to stand, would eliminate the time limit from the law. The Supreme
Court agreed in a decision which utilized the Foundation’s arguments.
[CJLF brief in PDF.] |
| Rompilla v. Beard |
6/20/05 |
Loss |
Habeas Corpus |
| U. S. Supreme Court decision to overturn
the death sentence of a Pennsylvania murderer. The defendant was convicted
on irrefutable evidence of the robbery and stabbing murder of an Allentown
bar owner. On appeal, the murderer claimed that his death sentence
was invalid because his defense attorney did not present enough evidence
of his troubled childhood to the sentencing jury. This claim was rejected
by the state courts, accepted by a federal district judge, and later
reversed by the federal Court of Appeals. When the Supreme Court accepted
the murderer’s appeal, CJLF argued that the state court had reasonably
decided the claim and that federal law required deference to its decision.
[CJLF brief in PDF.] |
|
Johnson v. California |
6/13/05 |
Loss |
Jury: Batson prima facie |
| U. S. Supreme Court decision upholding a convicted
murderer’s claim that California’s standard of proof for determining if racial
bias may have occurred in jury selection was higher than the federal standard,
and therefore unconstitutional. The case involved the second-degree murder
conviction of a man for beating his girlfriend’s 18-month-old daughter to death.
During jury selection, the defendant, who is black, claimed that the prosecutor
had intentionally rejected blacks from the jury. The judge denied this claim
finding that the defendant had not presented enough proof to meet the California
standard. When his appeal was accepted for review in the Supreme Court, CJLF
argued that California’s standard was consistent with federal rules. The Court
disagreed. [CJLF
brief in PDF.] |
|
Medellin v. Dretke |
5/23/05 |
Win |
Habeas Corpus: Vienna Conv. |
| U. S. Supreme Court decision to deny extended
federal court review of a Mexican citizen’s claim that his Texas murder
conviction violated his rights under international law. The case involved
the conviction and death sentence of José Ernesto Medellín for the gang rape
and murder of two teen-age girls in 1993. On appeal, he claimed that his
rights were violated by the failure of police to notify the Mexican consulate
in accordance with a 1963 international treaty. After a federal appeals court
ruled that he could not raise the claim on federal habeas corpus, the Supreme
Court agreed to consider the case. CJLF argued that a state court hearing would
be sufficient to resolve such claims. At such a hearing, the burden would be
on the defendant to prove that a failure to notify his government had a
prejudicial effect on his trial or sentencing. The high court adopted the CJLF
argument in its decision. [CJLF
brief in PDF.] |
|
Brown v. Payton |
3/22/05 |
Win |
AEDPA: Boyde v. California |
| The U. S. Supreme Court decided that the
California Supreme Court's decision upholding Payton's death sentence
was not an unreasonable application of clearly established federal
law. Payton was convicted of rape, first-degree murder, and two counts
of attempted murder. At the sentencing trial, the prosecutor argued
that the jury could not consider Payton's subsequent religious conversion
as mitigating evidence. The California Supreme Court ruled that while
this argument was improper, the death sentence should not be set aside.
Applying an earlier U. S. Supreme Court decision upholding California's
death penalty instructions, California's high court held that these
instructions cured the prosecutor's comments. The Ninth Circuit held
that this was an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent
and ordered the death sentence vacated. The U. S. Supreme Court reversed,
invalidating the Ninth Circuit's reasoning and finding the California
decision reasonable. [CJLF
brief in PDF.] |
|
Howell v. Mississippi |
1/24/05 |
Win |
Appeal: Issue not raised below |
| The U. S. Supreme Court decided that
it did not have jurisdiction to review a claim that a
Mississippi murderer never made in the state courts. Howell, looking for "an easy lick"
to rob, shot and killed a retired postal worker who was delivering newspapers at 5:00 a.m.
On appeal, he claimed that the judge's refusal to instruct on lesser offenses violated
state law, but never claimed the refusal violated the federal Constitution. The
Mississippi Supreme Court decided the instructions were proper under state law, in
the circumstances of the case. Howell appealed to the U. S. Supreme Court, raising
a constitutional claim for the first time. CJLF opposed this improper attempt to sandbag
the state court. The Supreme Court agreed and dismissed the case.
[CJLF brief in PDF.] |
|
Florida v. Nixon |
12/13/04 |
Win |
Ineffective Assistance |
| The Supreme Court held that Nixon's counsel
was not unconstitutionally ineffective for conceding his client's
guilt in closing argument in an effort to avoid the death penalty
where counsel told his client about the strategy, the client did not
object, and there was overwhelming evidence of guilt. [CJLF brief in PDF.] |
|
People v. Griffin |
8/9/04 |
Win |
Rape |
| California Supreme Court decision reinstating
the forcible rape conviction of a Pasadena man who had been repeatedly
molesting his girlfriend's daughter since she was ten years old. During
these episodes, he warned the little girl that if she told about the
molestations her mother would stop loving her. Finally, at the age
of 17, after being raped by the man, the girl told her mother. In
2002, a Los Angeles appeals court voided his forcible rape conviction
in a ruling which concluded that he had not used enough physical force,
even though he had pinned the girl's arms down during the attack.
When the Supreme Court agreed to review that ruling, CJLF joined the
case to argue that the appeals court had misinterpreted both the law
and precedent in order to spare this sexual predator. [CJLF brief in PDF.] |
|
Rumsfeld v. Padilla |
6/28/04 |
Win |
Habeas Corpus |
| CJLF wins a U. S. Supreme Court decision
to prevent judge shopping by suspected terrorists. The case involved
an American al Qaeda operative named Jose Padilla arrested in 2002
when he arrived in Chicago from Pakistan after spending three years
being trained to conduct terrorist acts for al Qaeda. After Padilla
was transferred to a South Carolina naval base on evidence that he
was planning to set off a "dirty bomb" within the United
States, an attorney joined by the ACLU petitioned the federal court
in New York claiming that his detention was unconstitutional. Last
fall, the New York appeals court ruled in his favor and ordered his
release from military custody. When the government appealed that ruling
to the Supreme Court, our Foundation joined the case. In its brief,
CJLF argued that the lower court did not have jurisdiction to rule
in the case and that the defendant can only attack his detention in
the federal court district in South Carolina, where he is being held.
The Supreme Court's precedent-setting decision adopted this position,
preventing terrorists from forum shopping their claims to the extreme
activist judges such as those on the Ninth Circuit. [CJLF brief in PDF.] |
|
United States v. Patane |
6/28/04 |
Win |
Self-incrimination |
|
U. S. Supreme Court decision utilizing CJLF arguments to allow
criminal evidence, voluntarily turned over to police, to be utilized
even though the defendant did not receive his Miranda warning.
The case involved the federal conviction of habitual felon Samuel
Patane for possession of a firearm. When officers visited Patane's
home for violating a restraining order prohibiting him from bothering
his ex-girlfriend, he cut short his Miranda warning saying,
"I know my rights." Patane then told an officer where
to find his gun. The federal appeals court overturned his conviction,
ruling that the gun was illegally obtained because Patane had not
received a complete Miranda warning. CJLF joined the Supreme
Court review of that ruling to argue that the warning is required
to prevent a suspect from being compelled to incriminating himself,
not to prevent physical evidence voluntarily given to police from
being used in court. The high court agreed, preventing an extension
of the Miranda decision and protecting the ability of juries
to consider important criminal evidence. [CJLF brief in PDF.]
|
|
Beard v. Banks |
6/24/04 |
Win |
Habeas corpus |
|
CJLF wins a U. S. Supreme Court decision reinstating the death
sentence of Pennsylvania mass murderer George Banks, who killed
thirteen people in 1983, including seven children. This is the second
time in two years that the Supreme Court has overturned the federal
Third Circuit Court of Appeals in this case. The Court's June 17,
2002, summary decision overturned a Third Circuit ruling which had
announced that a minor change in jury instructions, required in
1988 by Mills v. Maryland, voided Bank's death sentence,
even though the change came long after Banks' trial. Utilizing CJLF
arguments, the high court stated that the Third Circuit had "directly
contravened" precedent and ordered the lower court to reconsider
the case. Last year the same Third Circuit panel ruled that the
new jury instruction required by Mills actually wasn't new and that
Pennsylvania should have been using it when Banks was sentenced.
The Supreme Court's June 2004 decision utilized CJLF arguments again
to reject that ruling and reinstate the murderer's death sentence.
Hopefully, this decision will mark the end of the line for Mr. Banks.
[CJLF brief in PDF.]
|
|
Blakely v. Washington |
6/24/04 |
Loss |
Jury trial |
|
United States Supreme Court decision announcing that Washington's "guided discretion" sentencing law is unconstitutional. Guided discretion, which is used in a number of states and for federal sentencing, allows a judge to increase a convicted criminal's sentence based on the circumstances of the crime. The case involved a 7 1/2-year sentence given to a man who assaulted and kidnapped his estranged wife. Due to the violent circumstances of the crime, the judge increased the sentence beyond the 5-year presumed term. When the high court agreed to hear the criminal's claim that a jury must agree on any aggravating circumstances, CJLF argued that the Constitution does not require a jury finding and that such laws allow the judge to make the punishment fit the crime. [CJLF brief in PDF.]
|
|
Schriro v. Summerlin |
6/24/04 |
Win |
Habeas corpus |
|
CJLF wins a U. S. Supreme Court decision to uphold over 100 death
sentences in Arizona, Montana, Idaho and Nevada. Utilizing Foundation
arguments, the decision overturned a Ninth Circuit ruling which
had announced that a procedural change required by the Supreme Court's
2002 decision in Ring v. Arizona was so important that it
must be applied retroactively to death penalty cases in the four
western states. The case involved a man (Summerlin) sentenced to
death for the brutal rape and murder of an Arizona woman in 1981.
After an unbroken line of state and federal court rulings denying
the murderer's claims of trial and sentencing errors, the federal
Ninth Circuit ruled last year that Summerlin and every other murderer
whose case was pending in the federal courts must be re-sentenced
with the new procedure. The Ring decision changed a rule that had
allowed the sentencing judge in a murder case to determine if one
or more aggravating circumstances associated with the crime (such
as murder in conjunction with a rape or robbery) made the defendant
eligible for the death penalty. The new rule requires the jury to
find the aggravating circumstances. In the Supreme Court appeal,
CJLF argued that because the new requirement did not effect the
reliability of the sentence, it should not apply to death sentences
which have already been affirmed on direct appeal. The Court agreed,
deciding that the Ninth Circuit had, once again, misapplied the
law. [CJLF brief in PDF.]
|
|
Hiibel v. District Court |
6/21/04 |
Win |
Fourth Amendment: ID & Terry |
|
CJLF wins a U. S. Supreme Court decision upholding state laws which
require criminal suspects to identify themselves to police. The
case involved a Nevada man suspected of assaulting a young woman
who refused to identify himself to a police officer. Following his
conviction for violating Nevada's identification law, the Supreme
Court agreed to consider his claim that the law was unconstitutional,
a claim the federal Ninth Circuit had upheld in a different case.
CJLF joined the case to argue that when an officer has a reasonable
suspicion that a crime has been committed, his request for the identity
of a suspect is essential to the investigation and does not violate
the Constitution. The Court's decision adopted this reasoning stating,
"Asking questions is an essential part of police investigations.
In the ordinary course, a police officer is free to ask a person
for identification without implicating the Fourth Amendment."
. [CJLF brief in PDF.]
|
|
Yarborough v. Alvarado |
6/1/04 |
Win |
Witnesses: Discolure of identity |
|
U. S. Supreme Court decision which utilized CJLF arguments to uphold
the murder conviction of a Southern California gang member. The
case involved the murder of a man in a mall parking lot by two youths
who wanted to steal his pickup truck. After receiving a tip that
17-year-old Michael Alvarado was a participant in the murder, police
asked his parents to bring him to the station for an interview.
Alvarado was interviewed by a female officer who did not read him
his Miranda rights. During the interview, Alvarado made incriminating
statements about his involvement in the crime. At the end of the
interview, he was told that he was free to leave. He was later arrested
and convicted of second-degree murder based upon evidence which
included his statements. Following state and federal rulings affirming
his conviction, the federal Ninth Circuit overturned it, ruling
that, because he had not received a Miranda warning, Alvarado's
statements were improperly introduced as evidence. In the Supreme
Court review of that ruling, CJLF argued that the California court's
conclusion that Miranda did not apply to the questioning
because Alvarado was not in custody, was a reasonable application
of clearly established federal law and therefore the Ninth Circuit
must defer to this decision. The high court's decision adopted this
argument to reinstate the conviction and reject another improper
Ninth Circuit ruling. [CJLF brief in PDF.]
|
|
Nelson v. Campbell |
5/24/04 |
Loss |
Death penalty |
|
A narrow U.S. Supreme Court ruling allowing a multiple murderer, who had ruined his veins injecting drugs, to challenge his lethal injection execution as cruel and unusual punishment in a civil lawsuit. On New Year's Eve 1977, Nelson robbed and killed a cab driver and an acquaintance he met in a bar and attempted to kill his girlfriend. In 2003, on the day he was to be executed, he filed a civil rights lawsuit in the Supreme Court claiming that because his veins were in such poor shape, the procedure required to give him a lethal injection was unconstitutional. CJLF joined the case to argue that federal rules prohibit review of this claim because it should have first been reviewed in state court on habeas corpus. The Court's decision allowed, under very narrow circumstances, this murderer's civil suit to proceed. [CJLF brief in PDF.]
|
|
Baldwin v. Reese |
3/2/04 |
Win |
Habeas corpus |
|
CJLF wins a U. S. Supreme Court decision to deny additional review
of an Oregon kidnapper’s improperly presented claim. The case
involved the 1991 conviction of Michael Reese for the kidnapping
and sexual assault of a young woman. Four years after his conviction,
Reese submitted a claim that his former appeals attorney had been
incompetent. This claim was ruled meritless, and Reese’s new
attorney reported that there was no remaining issues worthy of review.
Reese attached a note to the report raising his claim of attorney
incompetence with no supporting argument. The appellate court denied
review. Before the Oregon Supreme Court, Reese’s attorney referred
to the claim but again made no argument. Finding the claim improperly
presented, the Oregon Supreme Court denied review. Later, the District
Court cited federal law prohibiting federal court review of claims
which are not properly presented in state court. The Ninth Circuit
disagreed, ruling that the lower courts should have researched Reese’s
claim themselves. In the Supreme Court, CJLF argued that it is the
defendant’s responsibility to present proper argument in the
state court or lose his opportunity to raise his claims in the federal
courts. The Supreme Court’s decision will help to prevent this
type of delay in other cases. [CJLF brief in PDF.]
|
|
Fellers v. United States |
1/26/04 |
Win |
Self-incrimination |
|
U.S. Supreme Court decision leaving unsettled whether the voluntary
confession made by a defendant who properly hears and waives his
Miranda rights can be excluded from trial because he made an earlier
confession after he had been indicted without receiving his Miranda
warning. The case involved the conviction of a habitual criminal
for possession and conspiracy to sell methamphetamine. In February
2000, a federal grand jury indicted John Fellers on the drug charges,
and police in Lincoln, Nebraska, contacted him at his home. During
initial questioning, Fellers made statements indicating he was involved
in the crime, although he was not under arrest and had not received
a Miranda warning. Fellers was later arrested and advised of his
Miranda rights, which he waived. He then made another statement
tending to incriminate himself. The trial court excluded the first
statement from the trial but admitted the second one. The federal
appeals court affirmed on the ground that the first statement was
not in response to interrogation. CJLF argued in the Supreme Court
that any error by the police in obtaining the first statement did
not affect the admissibility of the second, which was freely and
voluntarily made. The Supreme Court reversed the appeals court’s
decision, holding that the first statement was improperly taken,
and sent the case back without resolving whether the second statement
was admissible. [CJLF brief in PDF.]
|
|
United States v. Patane |
1/13/04 |
Win |
Search and seizure |
|
U. S. Supreme Court decision to uphold a police checkpoint seeking
information about a recent crime. The case involved a checkpoint
set up by Illinois police at the scene of a fatal, hit-and-run accident
which had occurred one week earlier at about the same time of day.
The officers briefly stopped all motorists to hand out flyers requesting
help from those who may have witnessed the accident. Robert Lidster's
erratic driving as he approached the checkpoint caused police to
administer sobriety tests, which he failed. Lidster was arrested
and found guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol. An Illinois
appellate court reversed Lidster's conviction, ruling the checkpoint
unconstitutional. The Illinois Supreme Court later affirmed the
decision. In the U. S. Supreme Court review of the case, CJLF argued
that the checkpoint balanced a minimal intrusion of motorists with
the important goal protecting the public from a dangerous criminal.
The Supreme Court's decision utilized CJLF arguments to overturn
the lower court and allow the use of similar checkpoints in every
state. [CJLF brief in PDF.]
|
| Maryland v. Pringle |
12/15/04 |
Win |
Search and seizure |
|
U. S. Supreme Court which utilized CJLF arguments to uphold the
authority of police to arrest the occupants of a car after a large
quantity of illegal drugs were found and everyone in the vehicle
denied ownership. The case involved a car with three passengers
stopped for speeding in Baltimore shortly after 3:00 a.m. As the
driver opened the glove compartment to retrieve the registration,
the officer saw a large roll of cash and became suspicious. The
driver consented to a search of his car, which turned up baggies
containing cocaine hidden behind the backseat armrest and over $700
in cash in the glove compartment. When none of the occupants admitted
to owning the cocaine, the officer arrested all three. Passenger
Joseph Pringle later confessed at the police station. The Maryland
Court of Appeals struck down the confession, ruling that the officer
did not have probable cause to arrest Pringle. CJLF joined the case
to argue that the Maryland court took the wrong approach. It was
certain that a crime had been committed, the only question was who
had committed it. The Supreme Court agreed that under such circumstances,
it was proper to arrest all the suspects and use further investigation
to solve the crime. [CJLF brief in PDF.]
|
| Oken v. Maryland |
11/17/03 |
Win |
Retroactivity |
| Maryland Court of Appeals decision which
utilized CJLF arguments to reject a murderer's claim that a 2002 Supreme
Court ruling required that he receive a new sentencing hearing 12
years after his conviction for the rape and murder of Dawn Garvin,
the young wife of a naval recruit. The case involved the high court's
ruling in the case of Ring v. Arizona which changed a procedure
used by, at most, nine states. The procedure had allowed a judge rather
than a jury to determine of the circumstances of a murder made the
convicted criminal eligible to receive a death sentence. Even though
Maryland was not among the states which used that procedure, triple-murderer
Steven Oken claimed that the Ring decision also required a
higher standard of review for sentencing juries as they determine
if a murderer should receive life in prison or the death penalty.
CJLF joined the case at the request of Dawn Garvin's family. Before
Maryland's highest court, the Foundation argued that Oken had misinterpreted
the Supreme Court's decision in order to add further delay to his
death sentence. . [CJLF brief in PDF.] |
| Wiggins v. Smith |
6/26/03 |
Loss |
Ineffective assistance |
| U. S. Supreme Court decision to void the death sentence
of a murderer who claimed that his lawyers were incompetent. The case
involves the death sentence of Kevin Wiggins for the murder and robbery
of a 76-year-old Maryland woman. Following his conviction, a hearing
was held to determine if Wiggins should receive life in prison or
a death sentence. In preparation, his attorneys conducted a preliminary
investigation of Wiggins' troubled background but decided against
using it in his defense. At the hearing, the attorneys introduced
expert testimony questioning the finding of guilt and encouraged the
jury to sentence him to prison. The jury sentenced him to death, and
the trial and sentence were upheld on direct appeal. On habeas corpus,
Wiggins claimed that, by failing to exhaustively investigate his background,
his attorneys failed to adequately represent him. CJLF argued the
murderer's claim should be rejected because the defense attorneys
made a reasonable judgment regarding the best strategy to pursue.
The high court held that the judgment was not reasonable in this case. [CJLF brief in PDF.] |
| Bazzetta v. Overton |
6/16/03 |
Win |
Prisoner civil rights |
| U. S. Supreme Court case which involved a legal challenge
to the rules governing visits to inmates in Michigan prisons. In
1995, the Michigan Department of Corrections adopted new visitation
regulations in response to the growth in prison population and the
increase in visitation. The new rules 1) prohibited visits by children
and former inmates who are not in the inmate's immediate family;
2) prohibited visits by children if the inmate's parental rights
have been terminated; 3) required that children be accompanied by
a parent or guardian; and 4) allowed for the suspension of visitation,
with the exception of attorneys and clergy members, for a minimum
of two years if the inmate was caught twice with illegal drugs.
Following the adoption of the rules, several inmates filed a federal
lawsuit, claiming the state was violating their constitutional rights.
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, finding that the visitation
rules were unnecessary for the orderly running of prisons. CJLF
filed an amicus curiae brief, arguing that, with rare exceptions,
the administration of state prisons should not be subject to second-guessing
by the federal courts, that prison inmates are not entitled to the
same rights as law-abiding citizens, and that controlling visitors
and suspending visitation when inmates are caught with drugs are
necessary to assure prsion security and inmate discipline. The U.
S. Supreme Court reversed the Sixth Circuit in a unanimous decision,
utilizing arguments from the CJLF brief. It held that whether or
not there is a right to family association in prison, it does not
support striking down these regulations which advance valid peneological
goals. [CJLF brief in PDF.] |
| Virginia v. Hicks |
6/16/03 |
Win |
First Amendment |
| U. S. Supreme Court decision overturning a 2002 Virginia
Supreme Court ruling which held that an effort to reduce crime in
a Richmond housing project was unconstitutional. The case involved
a law limiting access to the crime-ridden public housing project
to residents or people who had legitimate reason to visit. City
streets running through the project were closed and gang members
and other troublemakers who came on the property were cited for
trespassing. After the state's highest court struck down the law
for being overly broad, our Foundation joined the Supreme Court's
review of the case to argue that cities need broad authority to
protect the safety of people living in government supported housing.
The CJLF brief pointed out that crime in housing projects devastate
the lives of those who live there and that restricting the access
of nonresidents was a reasonable step to reduce crime and protect
residents. The Court's unanimous decision to uphold the law has
cleared the way for other cities to take similar steps to control
crime in public housing projects. [CJLF brief in PDF.] |
| Chavez v. Martinez |
5/27/03 |
Win |
Civil rights suits |
| U. S. Supreme Court decision utilizing CJLF
arguments to reject a criminal suspect's claim that he had the right
to sue a police officer who asked him questions he did not want
to answer. The case involved a police stop and frisk of a suspected
drug dealer in Oxnard, CA. During a pat down, an officer found a
knife and a struggle ensued. When the officer warned his partner
that the suspect (Martinez) had his gun, she shot Martinez. During
treatment in the emergency room, Martinez was questioned by a sergeant
about the incident. Although he was never charged with a crime,
Martinez sued the sergeant who questioned him, claiming that the
interview violated his rights. The District Court and federal Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the questioning in this case
violted the Miranda decision. CJLF joined the appeal of
those rulings to argue that neither Miranda nor the Fifth
Amendment provides a person who doesn't want to be questioned with
the right to sue an officer. A person's rights are only violated
if involuntary statements are introduced as evidence against him
in a criminal trial. The Court's precedent-setting decision protects
officers in every state from this kid of lawsuit. [CJLF brief in PDF.] |
|
