| Kansas v. Ventris |
4/29/09 |
Win |
Counsel: Jailhouse informant |
| U. S. Supreme Court decision upholding the use of a cellmate’s testimony to impeach the defendant, even though the cellmate’s testimony may have been obtained in violation of the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel. In January 2004, Donnie Ray Ventris and his live-in girlfriend devised a plan to rob an acquaintance. The pair went to Ernest Hicks home, and Hicks was shot and killed. Ventris and his girlfriend left the scene with Hicks’ wallet, approximately $300, his cell phone, and his pickup truck. At trial, both Ventris and his girlfriend accused the other of killing Hicks. In rebuttal to Ventris’s testimony, his cellmate, Johnnie Doser, testified that Ventris told him that he was the triggerman. Doser admitted that he had been placed in Ventris’s cell and was told to keep his ears open. The defense was unable to convince the judge to strike Doser’s testimony, and the jury convicted Ventris of aggravated robbery and burglary. CJLF joined the case to argue that the Kansas Supreme Court had misinterpreted Supreme Court precedent, which allows testimony of a jailhouse informant that does not question the defendant, but only listens. An opinion authored by Justice Scalia held that Doser’s statements could be used to impeach Ventris because “[t]he interests safeguarded by such exclusion are ‘outweighed by the need to prevent perjury and to assure the integrity of the trial process.’ ”
[CJLF brief in PDF.] |
| Cone v. Bell |
4/28/09 |
Loss |
Habeas corpus: Procedural default |
| U. S. Supreme Court decision reversing the Sixth Circuit’s decision to uphold Cone’s conviction and death sentence. Gary Cone was convicted fourteen years ago of beating an elderly Memphis couple to death during a two-day crime spree. Cone’s sole defense was that he was temporarily insane at the time of the murders. Although the defense attorney appealed for mercy, the jury sentenced Cone to death. On appeal, Cone alleged his attorney was incompetent. The claim was thoroughly reviewed and denied in the state courts. When Cone appeared before the Sixth Circuit for the third time, he alleged that prosecutors had improperly withheld evidence of his drug use, which he believed would have encouraged sympathy from the jury. The Sixth Circuit rejected his claim as procedurally defaulted and meritless. The Foundation joined the case to argue that Cone’s claim had been given more consideration than required by law, and further delay was not warranted. In a 5-1-1-2 decision, with Justice Stevens speaking for the majority, the Court remanded the case to the District Court to decide whether the evidence of Cone’s drug use was reasonably likely to have affected the sentence. Under the unusual procedural history of this case, the federal court was required to make this determination itself.
[CJLF brief in PDF.] |
| Rivera v. Illinois |
3/31/09 |
Draw |
Equal protection: Review of Batson claims |
| Unanimous U. S. Supreme Court decision that a criminal conviction may stand if a juror was wrongly seated after being opposed by a defense lawyer’s peremptory challenge. The Court reasoned that because it is within the state’s province to grant or withhold peremptory challenges, states are free to decide on their own what remedy should follow such error. Michael Rivera, the “Chief Enforcer” of a Chicago gang, shot and killed Marcus Lee as Lee walked down the street. During jury selection, Rivera tried to strike an African American female from the jury because she worked at a facility that also treated gunshot victims. The trial judge was not satisfied by counsel’s explanation and challenged the strike. He overruled use of the peremptory strike. Defense counsel later remarked he was striking the juror because he wanted more men on the jury. The Illinois Supreme Court found the trial judge had erred in overruling the strike without proof of discrimination, but also found the error was harmless. The Foundation joined the case to argue that the trial judge had not erred in finding discrimination. The Supreme Court found that the judge’s refusal to excuse the juror did not violate Rivera’s right to a fair and impartial jury.
[CJLF brief in PDF.] |
| Philip Morris v. Williams |
3/31/09 |
Draw |
Procedural default: Adequate state ground |
| U. S. Supreme Court dismissed the case as improvidently granted, leaving undecided the issue of when a state court’s holding that a party had failed to properly preserve his federal claim could also preclude federal court review of the question. CJLF filed a brief in Philip Morris because this question often arises in federal court review of state criminal convictions. The Oregon Supreme Court held that Philip Morris lost its federal claim of excessive damages by not using a state procedure required to preserve its claim. Philip Morris claimed the state rule departed from the state’s previous rulings on the rule, and could not be used to block a federal claim. The Foundation had asked the Court to define a clear standard to apply in this confused area of law, but the Court did not use this opportunity.
[CJLF brief in PDF.] |
| Arizona v. Johnson |
1/26/09 |
Win |
Search and seizure: Frisk of passengers |
| U. S. Supreme Court decision upholding the authority of a police officer to pat down a suspicious passenger for weapons during a traffic stop. The search occurred after Tucson police pulled over an uninsured vehicle in a neighborhood frequented by drug gangs. One officer noticed that the backseat passenger was dressed head to toe in local gang colors and had a police scanner sticking out of his pocket. After he told the officer he was recently released from prison, she asked him to step out of the car and frisked him for weapons. The search uncovered a handgun and drugs. Following his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm and drugs, the defendant won an appeals court ruling that the search was unlawful, because, as the passenger, he was not the subject of the traffic stop. When the U. S. Supreme Court agreed to consider Arizona’s appeal, CJLF joined the case to argue that the appeals court had misinterpreted precedent, which gives police officers the authority to pat down a person confronted in the line of duty if there is a reasonable suspicion that the person might be armed. The Foundation pointed out that an ex-con wearing the colors of a local drug gang, with a police scanner, meets this criterion. The Supreme Court unanimously agreed.[CJLF brief in PDF.] |
| Oregon v. Ice |
1/14/09 |
Win |
Sentencing: Jury for consecutive |
| U. S. Supreme Court decision upholding a judge’s authority to require a defendant convicted of multiple felonies to serve the sentences for each crime consecutively. Thomas Eugene Ice, an apartment manager, was convicted for twice using his pass key to burglarize a resident’s unit and molest her 11-year-old daughter. Ice was convicted on two counts of first-degree burglary and four counts of first-degree sexual abuse. The defense argued that the jury must make the findings that Oregon law requires before a judge may order that sentences run consecutively. Unconvinced, the judge ordered the consecutive sentences. Oregon’s Court of Appeals affirmed the decision; but the state supreme court later overturned that holding and Ice’s sentence, ruling that earlier U. S. Supreme Court decisions supported the defendant’s claim. CJLF joined the Supreme Court’s review of the case to argue that the Oregon court improperly extended a rule announced to prevent judges from punishing the defendant for a higher offense than the jury found. The court’s 5-4 decision agreed, in a decision that consecutive sentencing remains within the trial judge’s discretion. [CJLF brief in PDF.] |
| Hedgpeth v. Pulido |
12/2/08 |
Win |
Harmless error: Standard of review |
| U. S. Supreme Court decision to overturn a 2007 Ninth Circuit ruling, which had voided the conviction of California murderer Michael Pulido. Pulido was convicted on strong evidence of killing a gas station cashier during a 1992 robbery. Because both Pulido and his accomplice blamed each other for the killing, the jury could not agree on who actually fired the gun, but California’s felony-murder rule provides that accomplices to murder during the commission of a felony can both be found guilty of the murder. Fifteen years after his conviction, the Ninth Circuit sidestepped federal rules to invalidate Pulido’s conviction due to a minor jury instruction error previously deemed harmless by the California Supreme Court. CJLF joined the state’s appeal to argue that precedent (won by CJLF) requires that a claim of trial error raised on federal habeas corpus must be supported by substantial evidence that the error prejudiced the defendant’s case. No such evidence was presented to support the Ninth Circuit ruling. The high court agreed.[CJLF brief in PDF.] |
| Bell v. Kelly |
11/17/08 |
Win |
Habeas corpus: Deference standard |
| U. S. Supreme Court order refusing to reconsider a federal court ruling upholding the death sentence of Virginia cop killer Edward Bell. In 2001, Bell, an illegal immigrant and drug dealer, was convicted on strong evidence of murdering a police sergeant by shooting him in the face. On appeal, Bell claimed that his attorneys did not adequately represent him at his sentencing hearing. After the Virginia Supreme Court rejected this claim, Bell added additional evidence to support his claim to his petition for review on federal habeas corpus. A federal District Court rejected the claim, and later the federal Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment. Earlier this year, the high court agreed to review Bell’s appeal based upon his false claim that the Virginia Supreme Court had refused to consider the evidence he added to his federal petition. CJLF had joined the case to argue that Bell had never presented the new evidence to the Virginia Court and that the federal courts reviewing his new evidence ruled that it did not support his allegation of lawyer incompetence. When the Supreme Court learned the truth, it dropped Bell’s case. Bell was executed on February 19, 2009. [CJLF brief in PDF.] |
| People v. Hernandez |
8/27/08 |
Win |
Jury trial: Sentencing Factors |
| Hernandez was convicted of evading an officer with reckless driving and resisting the officer’s performance of duty. He was sentenced to the upper term of three years for evading an officer with reckless driving. At sentencing, the trial court imposed the upper-term sentence based on Hernandez’s prior convictions, prior prison term, the fact that he was on parole at the time he committed the charged offenses, and because his past performance on probation and parole had been unsatisfactory. In its brief to the California Supreme Court, CJLF argued Hernandez’s sentence was consistent with the U. S. Supreme Court’s holding in Cunningham v. California. CJLF argued Hernandez’s sentence did not violate the Sixth Amendment protections of Almendarez-Torres, Apprendi, and Cunningham because a prior conviction is still an aggravating factor that can be found by the trial court to impose an upper-term sentence. The California Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Towne, S125677 (June 26, 2008), affirmed this reasoning. In People v. Towne, the California Supreme Court ruled the trial court may find the aggravating circumstance that a defendant served a prior prison term, was on parole, or on probation at the time of the crime. Furthermore, a trial judge may find the aggravating factor of unsatisfactory performance on parole or probation if the unsatisfactory performance is established through a record of prior convictions. However, a right to a jury trial will attach if the poor performance on probation or parole can be established only by finding facts other than prior convictions, such as failed drug tests or failure to appear for appointments. The conclusions reached by the California Supreme Court in Towne were consistent with the amicus brief submitted by CJLF. In its brief, CJLF argued that Apprendi v. New Jersey required a jury to find the defendant eligible for an upper-term sentence. However, once a jury found a single fact making the defendant eligible, past convictions and unsatisfactory performance on probation or parole could be found by a trial judge and applied at his discretion to determine whether the defendant actually received the upper-term sentence. [CJLF brief in PDF.] |
| Indiana v. Edwards |
6/19/08 |
Win |
Counsel: Competency for self-representation |
| U.S. Supreme Court case on whether the Constitution requires states to allow a mentally ill defendant to act as his own attorney. The case involves the 2005 conviction of Ahmad Edwards, a thief who shot a security guard and a bystander at an Indianapolis department store. Edwards spent several years in state mental institutions until doctors determined that, with the aid of an attorney, he was competent to stand trial. However, the trial judge denied the defendant’s request to represent himself. On appeal, the defendant won an Indiana Supreme Court ruling overturning his conviction, announcing that an earlier U. S. Supreme Court decision (Faretta v. California) required the trial judge to grant the defendant’s request. When the nation’s highest court agreed to hear Indiana’s appeal, CJLF joined the case. The Foundation argued that the Faretta decision did not prohibit states from setting limits on the right to self-representation to prevent mentally ill defendants from turning the trial into a mockery of justice. The Supreme Court agreed, enabling trial judges to preserve the fairness and reliability of the trial. [CJLF brief in PDF.] |
| Boumediene v. Bush / Al Odah |
6/12/08 |
Loss |
Habeas Corpus: Enemy Detainees |
| In companion cases before the United States Supreme Court, CJLF filed an amicus curiae brief to demonstrate that the writ of habeas corpus was never meant to extend to prisoners of war designated as enemy combatants. CJLF filed its brief in response to the claims of two groups of enemy combatants, as well as 23 groups representing the interests of the combatants. The combatants, and their amicus, challenged their detention at a United States naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The groups claim the United States Constitution requires the government to allow them to file habeas corpus petitions in federal court. The groups also claim Congress does not have the authority to prohibit federal courts from hearing habeas claims, and that Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRTs), created by an Act of Congress in 2006 to determine the status of the detainees, unconstitutionally denied the petitioners due process rights. CJLF’s brief examined the history of habeas corpus going back to the English common law to show that a writ of habeas was never meant to extend to military prisoners with no prior connection to the United States. A narrow majority of the Supreme Court disagreed and extended the protection of the United States Constitution to enemies it was never intended to protect. [CJLF brief in PDF.] |
| People v. Superior Court (Humberto S.) |
5/12/08 |
Win |
Evidence: DA and Victim privacy |
| California Supreme Court case to review lower court rulings that had disqualified a public prosecutor for opposing the disclosure of an 8 year-old sexual abuse victim’s confidential psychotherapy records. Both the mother of the victim and the victim’s therapist objected to the disclosure of the records. However, the victim’s father, who is also the accused molester’s brother, consented to the release of the records. The prosecutor believed that the father’s consent should not be sufficient for disclosure because of the father’s conflict of interest in the case. The prosecutor then objected to the consent and filed a motion to appoint a guardian ad litem for the victim. The court denied the prosecutor’s motion, and later granted the defense’s motion to disqualify the prosecutor. The court found the prosecutor had incurred a conflict of interest by seeking to represent the victim’s interests. The appellate court later agreed with this ruling. CJLF joined the appeal to the California Supreme Court to argue the lower courts had misinterpreted the duties of the prosecutor. The prosecutor had a duty to enforce the law as a representative of a party to the case, and as such, the prosecutor had the right to participate in litigation affecting the proceeding. CJLF argued a prosecutor acts within the lawful range of his or her duties by acting as a zealous advocate for both the victim and the people of California. The lower courts had an obligation to respect the prosecutor’s duty, as well as the rights and interests of crime victims. The California Supreme Court unanimously agreed that the prosecutor’s actions were proper and not a conflict of interest. [CJLF brief in PDF.] |
| 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.] |
| Price v. Vincent |
5/19/03 |
Win |
Double Jeopardy |
| U. S. Supreme Court decision voiding an appeals court
ruling which had misinterpreted the Constitution's double jeopardy
protection. The case involved the first-degree murder conviction
of Duyonn Vincent for a 1992 shooting in a high school parking lot.
Vincent and a friend were both charged with firing shots which killed
the victim. During the trial, the judge stated that he would support
a defense motion to remove the charge of first-degree murder because
the prosecutor had not met the standard of proof. But after he heard
the prosecutor's argument against that motion he announced that
he would leave the decision regarding the degree of murder to the
jury. On appeal, Vincent claimed that the judge's actions exposed
him to double jeopardy. The state Supreme Court denied the claim,
noting that the judge had not formally granted an acquittal as required
by Supreme Court precedent. On habeas corpus, the federal Sixth
Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed, brushing aside the state court's
analysis in order to overturn the conviction. CJLF joined the case
to argue that the Sixth Circuit's ruling misapplied Supreme Court
precedent and defied a federal requirement that it respect the state
court's decision. [CJLF brief in PDF.] |
| Virginia v. Black |
4/7/03 |
Win |
First Amendment |
| U. S. Supreme Court decision utilizing CJLF arguments
to permit states to criminalize the burning of a cross with the
intent to intimidate. The case involved one incident where two men
placed a cross in a black neighbor's yard and attempted to burn
it, and another incident where a man burned a cross during a Ku
Klux Klan rally held on private property with owner's permission.
The defendants in both cases were convicted under a Virginia law
which prohibits cross burning. Virginia's highest court overturned
both convictions, ruling that the law was overly broad and violated
the First Amendment. CJLF joined the case to encourage a decision
permitting state court review of a broadly written statute to distinguish
threats of violence from protected speech. [CJLF brief in PDF.] |
| Woodford v. Garceau |
3/25/03 |
Win |
Habeas Corpus |
| U. S. Supreme Court decision rejecting a California
murderer's claim that a federal law enacted to speed review of death
penalty cases did not apply to him. The Court's decision overturned
a 2001 ruling by the Ninth Circuit which held that a case commences
when a defendant requests counsel for federal habeas corpus, not
when he actually files a petition for review. That ruling had spared
the murderer of a woman and her young son from the strict limits
on federal court review which became law in 1996. CJLF argued that
every other federal circuit court which considered the issue ruled
that a case is before the court when the petition is filed. The
high court's decision utilized CJLF arguments. [CJLF brief in PDF.] |
| Ewing v. California |
3/5/03 |
Win |
Sentencing |
| U. S. Supreme Court decision utilizing CJLF arguments
to find that California's "Three Strikes" sentencing law does not
violate the constitutional bar against "cruel and unusual punishment."
The case involved a habitual criminal, with prior convictions for
several violent and serious crimes, who qualified for a 25-years-to-life
sentence after his latest conviction for grand theft. After a state
appellate court rejected the defendant's claim that his sentence
was unconstitutional, the nation's highest court accepted the case
for review. CJLF joined the case to argue that the Court upheld
habitual criminal sentencing laws in earlier decisions and that
a ruling favoring the defendant could void such laws in virtually
every state. [CJLF brief in PDF.] |
| Lockyer v. Andrade |
3/5/03 |
Win |
Sentencing |
| U. S. Supreme Court decision overturning a 2001 Ninth
Circuit ruling that voided a sentence under California's "Three
Strikes" sentencing law. The high court utilized CJLF arguments
in its decision which held that the Ninth Circuit misinterpreted
an act of Congress which prohibits a federal court from reversing
a state court decision based only on a disagreement with the result.
In this case, the Ninth Circuit disagreed with the state Court of
Appeal, Supreme Court and the federal District Court in order to
announce that the sentencing law was unconstitutional. CJLF joined
the case to argue taht the law requires the lower federal courts
to respect state court decisions in criminal cases unless the state
court clearly violated U. S. Supreme Court precedent. [CJLF brief in PDF.] |
| Connecticut DPS v. Doe |
3/5/03 |
Win |
Due Process |
| U. S. Supreme Court decision utilizing CJLF arguments
to uphold Connecticut's version of "Megan's Law," which posts the
names of all convicted sex offenders on a registry available to
the public via the internet. The case involved a sex offender's
lawsuit, claiming that the law was unconstitutional because it did
not allow him to prove he was not a danger to the public. The high
court agreed to hear the case after a federal District Court and
Court of Appeals ruled in his favor. CJLF argued that the names
of persons convicted of crimes are a matter of public record and
states are not required to provide a forum for criminals to litigate
the public disclosure of their criminal records. [CJLF brief in PDF.] |
| Abdur'Rahman v. Bell |
12/10/02 |
Win |
Habeas corpus |
| U. S. Supreme Court rejection of a Tennessee murderer's
claim that the constitution rquired a second round of federal habeas
corpus review of his death sentence. The case involved the conviction
and death sentence of a murderer who brutally stabbed a Nashville
man to death and attempted to kill a woman. For the 16 years following
his conviction, Abdur'Rahman dragged numerous error claims through
the state and federal courts. On habeas corpus, he included one
claim which he had chosen not to present to the Tennessee Supreme
Court. After the lower federal courts denied review of the claim,
the high court agreed to hear his argument that a rule of civil
procedure required an additional review. CJLF joined the case to
argue that specific federal rules limiting successive review in
criminal cases take precedence. [CJLF brief in PDF.] |
| Stewart v. Smith |
6/28/02 |
Win |
Habeas corpus |
| U. S. Supreme Court decision summarily reversing the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for misinterpreting precedent in
order to allow review of a murderer's claim of lawyer incompetence.
The case involved the death sentence of a Texas man for the kidnapping,
rape, and murder of Tucson woman. Because his lawyer-incompetence
claim was improperly raised (raised for the first time after two
rounds of state habeas corpus), it was barred from review under
Arizona law. Ignoring this, the Ninth Circuit ordered review of
the claim. CJLF filed arguments pointing out that the Ninth Circuit
violated precedent to spare the murderer. |
| Harris v. United States |
6/24/02 |
Win |
Sentencing |
| U. S. Supreme Court decision to uphold mandatory minimum
sentencing laws used to punish the most dangerous state and federal
criminals. These laws allow a judge to determine if factors of the
crime (such as use of a gun) qualify a criminal for a mandatory
sentence. The case involved a North Carolina pawn shop owner who
received a mandatory sentence for brandishing a gun while selling
drugs to an undercover police officer. On appeal, the criminal claimed
that his use of a gun should have been found by a jury rather than
the sentencing judge. CJLF urged the Court to uphold its own precedent
to preserve this widely used procedure. [CJLF brief.] |
| Ring v. Arizona |
6/24/02 |
Loss |
Death penalty |
| U. S. Supreme Court ruling announcing that a sentencing
procedure it had ruled constitutional 12 years ago is now unconstitutional.
The case involves the death sentence of an Arizona man for the murder
of an armored car driver during a robbery. Under a procedure approved
by the Supreme Court's 1990 decision in Walton v. Arizona,
the sentencing judge found that the killing qualified as a death
penalty offense. When the case was accepted for review, CJLF urged
the high court not to change the rules, noting that nine states
and nearly 700 death sentences relied upon this procedure. [CJLF brief.] |
| Atkins v. Virginia |
6/20/02 |
Loss |
Death penalty |
| U. S. Supreme Court ruling announcing that the Constitution
forbids sentencing mentally retarded murderers to death. In 1989
the Court came to the opposite conclusion in Penry v. Lynaugh.
The case involves a Virginia man sentenced to death for the kidnapping,
robbery and execution of a young airman. When the high court agreed
to review the killer's retardation claim, CJLF joined the case to
argue that the Court should abide by its own precedent and any exemption
for retarded persons should be decided legislatively, not grafted
on to the Constitution. [CJLF brief.] |
| Horn v. Banks |
6/17/02 |
Win |
Habeas corpus |
| U. S. Supreme Court decision to reinstate the death
sentence of a multiple murderer and rebuke the federal appeals court
for a ruling which had spared him. The case involved the 1982 conviction
and death sentence of a Pennsylvania man who killed 13 people during
a shooting spree. On habeas corpus, the murderer claimed that his
sentence was void because standard jury instructions were revised
5 years after his trial. Last year, the federal Third Circuit Court
of Appeals overturned the lower court's ruling in order to uphold
the claim and void the death sentence. CJLF filed arguments showing
that the Third Circuit's ruling ignored two earlier Supreme Court
decisions (won by CJLF) to spare the murderer. |
| Carey v. Saffold |
6/17/02 |
Draw |
Habeas corpus |
| U. S. Supreme Court decision announcing that the Congressional
time limit on filing habeas corpus petitions does not apply to defendants
who move their habeas corpus claims through the state courts in
a reasonably prompt manner. Those who waste an excessive amount
of time will have it counted against them when they file for federal
habeas corpus. CJLF joined the case to encourage a decision requiring
that all time lapses between the filing of state petitions count
against the one-year federal time limit. [CJLF brief.] |
| Bell v. Cone |
5/28/02 |
Win |
Habeas corpus |
| U. S. Supreme Court decision which utilized CJLF arguments
to reinstate the death sentence of a man who beat an elderly Tennessee
couple to death during a burglary. The case involved a federal appeals
court ruling which accepted the murderer's claim that his attorney
was incompetent after the state supreme court and the federal District
Court found it groundless. CJLF joined the Supreme Court review
of that ruling to argue that the federal court violated its authority
and misinterpreted Supreme Court precedent in order to spare the
murderer. [CJLF brief.] |
| Mickens v. Taylor |
3/27/02 |
Win |
Habeas corpus |
| U. S. Supreme Court decision to uphold the conviction
and death sentence of a habitual sex offender who sodomized and
brutally murdered a young Virginia man in 1992. After years of appeals,
the murderer claimed for the first time that his trial attorney
had a conflict of interest because he had briefly represented the
murder victim on a minor charge. Although the murderer presented
no evidence that this had in any way affected his case, a federal
appeals court panel overturned his conviction. When the high court
agreed to review the case, CJLF joined the case to argue that upholding
a conflict claim without any indication of an adverse effect needlessly
overturned a valid, reliable judgment. [CJLF brief.] |
| Manduley v. Superior Court |
2/28/02 |
Win |
Separation of powers |
| The California Supreme court upheld the constitutionality
of Proposition 21, California's Gang Violence and Juvenile Crime
Prevention Act. In a 6-1 decision, the high court held that the
new law's provision which gave prosecutors the discretion to bypass
juvenile court and prosecute certain violent juvenile offenders
directly in adult court did not violate the constitutional separation
of powers doctrine. The court also rejected equal protection and
due process attacks on this provision and held that Proposition
21 did not violate the single subject rule. [CJLF brief.] |
| Lee v. Kemna |
1/22/02 |
Loss |
Habeas corpus |
| U. S. Supreme Court ruling that a defendant's improperly
presented claim should have been heard on federal habeas corpus.
The case involves the trial judge's decision to deny a murderer's
request for a continuance in order to round up witnesses who left
before taking the stand. The state court of appeal rejected the
claim that the defendant's rights were denied, finding that he had
failed to present evidence to support his request as required under
state rules. Later, both a federal judge and the Court of Appeals
refused to hear the case because claims which violate state rules
are barred from federal court review. CJLF joined the case to encourage
a decision upholding the state procedural bar. [CJLF brief.] |
| State v. Kleypas |
12/28/01 |
Win |
Death penalty |
| Kansas Supreme Court decision to uphold the state's
death penalty law with the exception of a sentencing jury instruction
it wants modified. The case involved the attempted rape and murder
of a co-ed by a man on parole for a previous murder. The murderer
appealed his death sentence claiming that the Kansas death penalty
law was unconstitutional. CJLF joined the case to argue that the
state's law complied with U. S. Supreme Court precedent. The Court's
decision agreed, but held that a required instruction to the sentencing
jury should be changed. [CJLF brief.] |
| United States v. Knights |
12/10/01 |
Win |
Search & Seizure |
| U. S. Supreme Court decision allowing police to search
the homes of criminals on probation without a warrant. The case
involved a habitual criminal on probation suspected of firebombing
California power facilities. Police searched his home and found
incriminating evidence, but the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
ruled the search illegal, announcing that the Constitution only
allows searches for rehabilitative purposes. CJLF joined the case
to argue that public safety requires that criminals free on probation
be subject to police searches. The Court agreed, utilizing CJLF
arguments in its decision. [CJLF brief.] |
| Tyler v. Cain |
6/28/01 |
Win |
Habeas corpus |
| United States Supreme Court decision upholding a limit
on the number of times a conviction can be challenged on federal
habeas corpus. The case involves the 1978 murder conviction of Melvin
Tyler who, during a drunken rage, fired a gun through the window
of his girlfriend's Louisiana home, killing their infant daughter.
Tyler's challenges to his conviction were rejected by both state
and federal courts on direct appeal and habeas corpus. In 1990,
a Supreme Court decision struck down a jury instruction used in
Tyler's trial. Five years later, a Louisiana court rejected his
claim that the Supreme Court's decision should be applied retroactively
to void his conviction. The next year, Congress enacted a law prohibiting
a second round of federal habeas corpus review of any claim that
was available to the defendant but not raised in a previous federal
petition, except for rule changes made retroactive by the Supreme
Court. After two federal courts cited the new law to deny further
review of Tyler's claim, the high court agreed to consider it. CJLF
argued that no additional review was allowed because the Court has
not made its jury instruction decision retroactive. The Court utilized
CJLF arguments to adopt this reasoning. [CJLF brief.] |
| Saucier v. Katz |
6/18/01 |
Win |
Civil rights suits |
| United States Supreme Court decision to overturn a federal
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling, which would have made it
far easier to sue law enforcement officers for excessive force.
The case involved an animal rights protester who had attempted to
disrupt an event held at the Presidio Army Base in San Francisco.
Two enlisted men assigned to police the event, apprehended the protester,
hustled him into a van and pushed him inside. The protester was
then searched, handcuffed and taken to a miliary police station
where he was released after the event concluded. Although he had
suffered no injuries, the protester and an animal rights group filed
a federal lawsuit, claiming that the guards had used excessive force
in removing him. In spite of a Supreme Court decision which provides
government officials qualified immunity from lawsuits unless their
actions were clearly illegal, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the protester's
lawsuit could go forward. CJLF joined the government's appeal to
argue that by undermining the standard of qualified immunity, the
Ninth Circuit's ruling would encourage federal lawsuits and discourage
the police from doing their jobs. The high court agreed, utilizing
CJLF arguments in its decision. [CJLF brief.] |
| Duncan v. Walker |
6/18/01 |
Win |
Habeas corpus |
| United States Supreme Court decision upholding the time
limit for criminal defendants to challenge their state convictions
in federal court. The case involved the New York robbery conviction
of a habitual criminal who intentionally filed his claims in the
wrong court in order to avoid the one-year time limit for filing
his federal habeas corpus petition. When a federal district judge
refused to hear his challenge after the time limit had expired,
the defendant won a federal appeal's court ruling, announcing that
the clock stops when a defendant files his claim in the wrong court.
CJLF joined the Supreme Court appeal of that holding to argue that
the intent of Congress in enacting the time limit, which is to prevent
years of unnecessary court review, is undermined when defendants
can avoid it by ignoring the rules by intentionally filing claims
in the wrong court. The Supreme Court's decision adopting this position
utilizing arguments introduced in the Foundation's brief. [CJLF brief.] |
| Penry v. Johnson |
6/4/01 |
Loss |
Death penalty sentencing |
| United States Supreme Court decision regarding evidence
and jury instructions in capital sentencing proceedings. The high
court held that the instructions used in the case did not inform
the jury with sufficient clarity that they could consider mitigating
factors outside the three "special issues" in the Texas sentencing
statute. However, the court upheld the Texas court's decision to
allow the use in evidence of a psychological evaluation from the
defendant's prior rape conviction in this case of rape and murder. [CJLF brief.] |
| Daniels v. United States |
4/25/01 |
Win |
Habitual criminals |
| United States Supreme Court decision to prevent criminals
from challenging the validity of prior convictions during federal
court review of the conviction for a new crime. The case involves
a habitual felon, convicted of illegal possession of a firearm,
who faced a lengthy prison sentence under the federal armed career
criminal act. On federal habeas corpus the criminal attempted to
argue that his prior convictions, which qualified him for the longer
sentence, were improper. The appeals court ruled that he could not
attack his priors during review of a new conviction. When the Supreme
Court accepted his appeal of that ruling, CJLF joined the case to
argue that the proper time for a defendant to challenge the validity
of a conviction on habeas corpus is while he is serving his sentence
for that crime, not years later when challenging his sentence for
a new crime. The Supreme Court agreed, utilizing CJLF arguments
in a precedent-setting decision which will help to prevent habitual
criminals from avoiding the longer confinement they have earned. [CJLF brief.] |
| Murphy v. Shaw |
4/18/01 |
Win |
Civil rights suits |
| United States Supreme Court decision rejecting a federal
Ninth Circuit holding that prison inmates have a First Amendment
right to aid in the legal defense of other inmates. The case stems
from a lawsuit filed by a Montana inmate who claimed that prison
security rules unconstitutionally prohibited him from providing
legal aid to another inmate charged with assaulting a guard. Although
a district judge dismissed his claim as groundless, the federal
Ninth Circuit reversed in a ruling which discovered special First
Amendment protection for jailhouse lawyers. When the Supreme Court
agreed to review the case, CJLF filed arguments stressing that there
is no special protection for jailhouse lawyers and by inventing
one, the lower court undermines state control and security in their
prisons. The Court agreed utilizing CJLF arguments in its decision. [CJLF brief.] |
| Texas v. Cobb |
4/2/01 |
Win |
Counsel |
| United States Supreme Court decision reinstating the
conviction and death sentence given to a Texas man who murdered
a young mother and her infant daughter. Initially, the murderer
pled guilty to burglarizing the victims' home, but he denied knowledge
of the whereabouts of the woman and child, who had disappeared.
Months later, he confessed and led police to the bodies. The Texas
appeals court overturned the conviction, ruling that although the
defendant had waived his Miranda rights when he confessed,
the Constitution did not allow police to question him on the murders
without the presence of his burglary attorney. At the request of
the Texas Attorney General, CJLF joined the appeal of this decision
to the United States Supreme Court. Our brief argued that the right
to counsel is specific to the offense. Police should not be precluded
from obtaining a voluntary confession, by otherwise valid, proper
questioning, merely because the crime is related to another crime
for which charges are pending. The high court agreed, using CJLF
arguments in its decision. [CJLF brief.] |
| People v. Atkins |
3/12/01 |
Win |
Mental defenses |
| California Supreme Court decision prohibiting the use
of voluntary intoxication as a defense to the crime of arson. The
case involved the conviction of an arsonist which was overturned
by an appeals court ruling because the defendant was not allowed
to claim that he could not be held fully responsible for his actions
because he was drunk when he set the fire. CJLF joined the Supreme
Court appeal of that ruling to argue that arson, like rape and assault,
is a "general intent" crime which cannot be excused by intoxication. [CJLF brief.] |
| Alabama Dept. of Youth Services v. Ash |
2/21/01 |
Win |
Civil Rights Suits |
| United States Supreme Court decision prohibiting prison
employees (and inmates) from filing federal discrimination lawsuits
against the states under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The
case involved an Alabama prison guard with a sleeping disorder who
filed an ADA lawsuit claiming he was discriminated against because
the state did not put him on the day shift. The Court agreed with
the Foundation that allowing state employees to sue states in federal
court violated the Constitution. [CJLF brief.] |
|
