|
| Alvarado v. Superior Court |
8/17/00 |
Draw |
Witness disclosure |
| The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal
decision that had allowed the trial judge to permanently withhold
the identities of certain testifying witnesses in a prison gang-killing
case. The high court, however, did recognize that trial courts should
still have substantial authority to protect the identities of witnesses
that face threats from organized crime. The fact the trial court's
initial order overstepped its bounds would not prevent it from finding
a less drastic way to protect the witnesses from the prison gang
that they were to testify against at trial. |
| Dickerson v. United States |
6/26/00 |
Loss |
Self-incrimination |
| United States Supreme Court case which involved a suspected
bank robber who made incriminating statements to police before receiving
his Miranda warning. A federal district judge ruled that
the statements could not be used at trial because when a suspect
makes them in a police station before receiving the warning they
are presumed to be involuntary. In 1999, the federal Court
of Appeals overturned that holding concluding that a 1968 law, enacted
by Congress, but never upheld by the Supreme Court, removed the
presumption that a statement made under these circumstances is involuntary.
The law, which was enacted to limit the exclusion of incriminating
statements, requires a court to look at all the circumstances surrounding
a suspect's statement to determine if it was freely given or not.
CJLF joined the case to argue that Miranda created a rule
of evidence, not a constitutional right, and that Congress has the
power to change those rules to assure that important evidence of
guilt is not excluded from criminal trials. The United States Supreme
Court held that the rule of Miranda was a constitutional
rule and therefore could not be replaced by Congress's alternative
to that decision, 18 U.S.C. § 3501. [CJLF brief.] |
| Miller v. French |
6/19/00 |
Win |
Civil rights & suits |
| The United States Supreme Court decision upheld an important
provision of the 1996 Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), which
created a process by which states can free themselves from federal
court orders dictating the operation (and costs) of state prisons.
The law sets minimum standards for prison conditions and requires
federal courts to promptly review state requests to lift their court
orders. When a court does not rule on a state's request within 90
days, federal control of the prison[s] in question ends automatically.
After the high court agreed to review an ACLU challenge to the time
limit, CJLF joined the case to argue that the Constitution gives
Congress the power to limit federal court jurisdiction over the
states. [CJLF brief.] |
| Slack v. McDaniel |
4/26/00 |
Win |
Habeas Corpus |
| United States Supreme Court decision to uphold limits
to federal habeas corpus enacted by Congress in 1996. The case involves
the 1990 murder conviction of a Las Vegas man who killed a 12-year-old
girl with a shotgun after arguing with her about their sexual relationship.
At his trial, the murderer admitted shooting the girl, but claimed
that the shotgun "just went off" while he was holding it against
her neck. After nine years of review by four courts rejecting his
claims of trial errors and an incompetent defense attorney, the
Supreme Court agreed to hear his claim that limits on federal habeas
corpus required under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death
Penalty Act of 1996 do not apply to his case. CJLF joined the
case to argue that when a federal district judge cannot find substantial
support for a defendant's error claims (as occurred in this case),
then the Act prohibits any further review of those claims. The high
court agreed utilizing the Foundation's arguments.
[CJLF brief.] |
| Williams v. Taylor |
4/18/00 |
Win |
Habeas Corpus |
| United States Supreme Court decision to uphold the key
provision of a 1996 congressional act which sharply curtails federal
court review of state criminal convictions. The case involves the
death sentence of habitual criminal Terry Williams for the 1985
robbery and murder of an elderly man in Danville, Virginia. Following
court decisions on appeal and state habeas corpus upholding his
conviction and sentence, Williams won a federal District Court ruling
voiding his sentence because his trial attorney had failed to present
evidence of his deprived and abusive upbringing. After a federal
appeals court overturned that ruling finding that it was prohibited
by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996,
the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Williams' claims. CJLF joined
the case to argue that the Constitution gives Congress the authority
to determine the jurisdiction of the federal courts and stressed
the need for a decision upholding the important limits required
by the Act. The Court utilized CJLF arguments in its decision.
[CJLF brief.] |
| Portuondo v. Agard |
3/6/00 |
Win |
Sixth Amendment |
| United States Supreme Court decision reinstating the
rape conviction of a New York man who claimed that his rights were
violated by a prosecutor's statement during closing argument. At
the trial, jurors heard testimony from several witnesses about events
leading up to the rape and a taped apology from the rapist recorded
on the victim's answering machine, but as in most rape cases, the
defendant and the victim were the only witnesses to the crime. After
the other witnesses had testified, the defendant took the stand
and told jurors that the victim had agreed to have sex with him
and that her injuries were the result of her attack upon him.
In closing argument, the prosecutor pointed out that the defendant
was the only witness allowed to hear all of the other testimony
before he took the stand, permitting him to tailor his alibi to
suit the evidence. In 1997 a federal appeals court voided the conviction,
ruling that the statement was unconstitutional. CJLF joined the
Supreme Court appeal of that ruling arguing that the Constitution
does not bar statements of fact concerning the credibility of a
defendant. The Supreme Court agreed, utilizing CJLF arguments in
its decision. [CJLF brief.] |
| Los Angeles Alliance v. City of L.A. |
3/2/00 |
Win |
Public Order: solicitation |
| California Supreme Court decision rejecting a federal
judge's ruling that a Los Angeles ordinance against aggressive panhandling
violates the state Constitution. the case stems from an ACLU lawsuit
in federal court to block enforcement of the ordinance which prohibits
panhandling at bus stops, traffic medians, ATM machines, restaurants
and panhandling which is threatening or intimidating. After a federal
district judge ruled that the ordinance violated the state constitutional
protection of free speech, the City of Los Angeles appealed to the
federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. CJLF joined the case after
the Ninth Circuit asked the California Supreme Court to determine
if the judge was correct regarding the California Constitution.
The Foundation argued that requests for money are subject to more
regulation than the mere expression of ideas. The Court agreedutilizing
CJLF arguments to uphold the ordinance complies with the federal
Constitution. CJLF will argue to uphold this important ordinance
in the federal Court of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court
if necessary. [CJLF brief.] |
| Roe v. Ortega |
2/23/00 |
Win |
Counsel: failure to appeal |
| United States Supreme Court decision to overturn a lower
court ruling which announced that criminals are entitled to an automaticappeal
of their convictions unless they specifically refuse. The case involved
a Fresno man who pled guilty to the murder of a co-worker. While
convictions resulting from trial are almost always appealed, most
of the error claims associated with trials are avoided when a defendant
pleads guilty to the crime rather than face a trial. In this case,
the defendant did not ask for an appeal and his defense attorney
found no issues related to the conviction worthy of review. Months
after the deadline for filing an appeal, the criminal claimed that
his defense attorney was incompetent because she had not appealed
his conviction. The federal Court of Appeals accepted this claim
in a ruling that the Supreme Court later agreed to reconsider. CJLF
argued that there is no constitutional right to an appeal and a
decision inventing one would flood state courts with new appeals
of thousands of old convictions. The high court's decision utilized
CJLF arguments. [CJLF brief.] |
| Ashmus v. Woodford |
1/24/00 |
Loss |
Habeas Corpus |
| Federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling announcing
that California does not qualify for the faster federal habeas corpus
process required by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty
Act of 1996. The case involves a Sacramento man sentenced to death
in 1984 for the rape and murder of a six-year-old girl. After 11
years of post-conviction review, the state Attorney General petitioned
to have the new fast-track procedures applied to this case. A federal
district judge ruled that the state's process for appointing habeas
corpus attorneys for convicted murderers did not conform to the
new law. CJLF joined the Ninth Circuit appeal of that ruling to
argue that the judge's ruling interpreted the law so narrowly that
no state would qualify, which was clearly not the intent of Congress.
If the Supreme Court agrees to review this flawed ruling, CJLF will
be a participant. [CJLF brief.] |
| Smith v. Robbins |
1/19/00 |
Win |
Counsel: no merit briefs |
| United States Supreme Court decision to relax the requirement
that states conduct extensive appellate court review of a convicted
criminal's obviously frivolous claims. the case involves the second-degree
murder conviction of a Los Angeles man. Following the trial, the
defense attorney reported that there were no claims worthy of consideration
and asked to be dismissed. After reviewing the trial record, the
Court of Appeal agreed and dismissed the attorney. On federal habeas
corpus the murderer argued that this violated a 1967 Supreme Court
ruling requiring the defense attorney to present any claim no matter
how weak to the appellate court for review. When the higher court
agreed to reconsider that requirement, CJLF joined the case to argue
that the earlier ruling should be relaxed or abandoned to save valuable
court time. The high court's decision utilizedCJLF arguments.
[CJLF brief.] |
| Weeks v. Angelone |
1/19/00 |
Win |
Death Penalty |
| United States Supreme Court decision to uphold the death
sentence of a man who murdered a Virginia State Trooper in 1993.
After four lower courts rejected the murderer's claim that it was
unconstitutional for the judge to use the standard jury instructions
to answer the jury's question about its duties, the high court accepted
it for review. CJLF joined the case at the Virginia Attorney General's
request to argue that the instruction had previously been upheld
as constitutional by the Supreme Court and that it answered the
specific question asked by the jury. The Foundation warned that
after decades as the common practice among trial judges nationwide,
a decision announcing that referring the jury back to its instructions
is now unconstitutional would overturn the sentences of thousands
of criminals across the country. The Court utilized the Foundation's
arguments in its precedent-setting decision. [CJLF brief.] |
| Martinez v. Court of Appeal of CA |
1/12/00 |
Win |
Counsel |
| United States Supreme Court decision announcing that
a criminal defendant does not have a constitutional right to represent
himself in an appeal of his conviction. The case involves the third
felony conviction of a California man who had refused a court-appointed
attorney, choosing to represent himself at his trial. Upon conviction
he announced his intention to represent himself in the appeal. After
both the appellate court and the state Supreme Court refused to
allow this, the nation's highest court agreed to consider if it
was required. CJLF joined the case to argue that the right to represent
oneself at trial did not extend to the appeal and that if defendants
were allowed to act as their own counsel at these complex proceedings,
it would turn the appeals process into a farce. The Court agreed,
utilizing CJLF arguments in its decision. [CJLF brief.] |
| Illinois v. Wardlow |
1/12/00 |
Win |
Search & Seizure |
| United States Supreme Court decision announcing that
a person who runs at the sight of police in a high crime area can
be stopped and frisked for weapons. The holding overturned an Illinois
high court ruling finding it unconstitutional for officers to stop
and frisk a man who fled during a drug sweep by Chicago police.
After catching the suspect, an ex-felon, police found a loaded .38
caliber pistol in the bag he was carrying. When the case reached
the Supreme Court, CJLF introduced arguments showing that the "reasonable
suspicion" requirement for a stop and frisk is met when a person
runs from police and added that a ruling preventing police from
pursuit would do serious damage to the effectiveness of law enforcement.
The Court utilized CJLF arguments in its decision. [CJLF brief.] |
| People v. Gainey |
11/10/99 |
Draw |
Habitual Criminals |
| The case was transferred to the Court of Appeal, First
Appellate District, Division Four, with directions to vacate its
decision and to reconsider the cause in light of People
v. Allen, 21 Cal.4th 424. [CJLF brief.] |
| CA Attorneys for Criminal Justice v. Butts |
11/9/99 |
Loss |
Self Incrimination |
| Federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal decision holding
that police might be civilly liable for questioning a suspect after
he asks to see a lawyer. This decision potentially conflicts with
the California Supreme Court's decision in People v. Peevy, a CJLF victory. The United
States Supreme Court may review the Butts decision in order to resolve
the conflict. [CJLF brief.] |
| People v. Williams |
8/12/99 |
Loss |
Statute of Limitations |
| California Supreme Court case regarding whether a defendant
can assert the statute of limitation on appeal when he made no objection
throughout his trial. The court decided to allow belated assertion
of this defense. [CJLF brief.] |
| United States v. Jones |
6/21/99 |
Win |
Death Penalty |
| United States Supreme Court decision announcing that
sentencing judges are not required to inform jurors about what will
happen if they cannot agree on the sentence. The case involved a
convicted murderer who claimed that the jury, which unanimously
sentenced him to death, should have been informed that in the event
of a deadlock he would automatically receive a life sentence. CJLF
argued that such an instruction would distract the jury from its
duty of trying to reach a unanimous decision based on upon the facts
of the case. [CJLF brief.] |
| Strickler v. Greene |
6/17/99 |
Win |
Habeas Corpus |
| United States Supreme Court decision rejecting a murderer's
claim that his death sentence was invalid because the prosecutor
failed to turn over some weak evidence to his lawyer during the
trial. The claim, raised for the first time six years after the
trial, involved statements made to an investigator by a witness
to the victim's abduction, raising questions about her memory. The
jury had based its verdict and sentence on overwhelming evidence
of the defendant's guilt in the brutal killing. CJLF argued that
only a strong showing that the defendant was innocent or was denied
a fair trial should be the basis for overturning a conviction or
sentence on federal habeas corpus. [CJLF brief.] |
| Lilly v. Virginia |
6/10/99 |
Loss |
Confrontation Clause |
| United States Supreme Court decision to overturn a murder
conviction because prosecutors violated the Constitution by introducing
an accomplice's taped confession as evidence to implicate his brother
in the killing of a college student. CJLF argued that a taped confession
made by an accomplice who is also implicating himself in the crime
should be considered as reliable evidence and an exception to the
general prohibition against hearsay. [CJLF brief.] |
| Conn v. Gabbert |
4/5/99 |
Win |
Due Process |
| United States Supreme Court decision rejecting a lower
court ruling which held that the search of a defense attorney during
the grand jury hearing in the Menendez murder case
violated his right to represent his client under the Due Process
Clause of the Constitution. CJLF argued that the search was conducted
in accordance with a valid warrant and did not violate the due process
rights of the lawyer or his client. CJLF arguments were utilized
in this decision. [CJLF brief.] |
| Wyoming v. Houghton |
4/5/99 |
Win |
Fourth Amendment |
| United States Supreme Court decision utilizing CJLF
arguments to uphold police searches of purses and other containers
in vehicles when there is probable cause to believe that they contain
illegal items. The case stems from the search of a purse during
a traffic stop, after a highway patrol officer determined that there
might be drugs in the car. When the search was challenged on appeal,
CJLF argued that holding passengers at the side of the road while
a warrant was obtained was a greater intrusion for an innocent suspect
than allowing the car to be searched at the time of the stop.
[CJLF brief.] |
| Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee |
2/24/99 |
Win |
Due Process |
| United States Supreme Court decision holding that the
federal courts have no jurisdiction to stop deportation proceedings
against terrorist supporters. The case involved eight aliens who
had successfully blocked their deportation for twelve years with
claims of rights' violations. The Supreme Court agreed to review
a Ninth Circuit ruling that a federal law designed to limit court
delays of deportation proceedings did not include delays based upon
constitutional challenges. CJLF joined the case to argue that Congress
had both the power and the intention of limiting court review of
constitutional claims against deportation. The high court agreed,
overturning the Ninth Circuit's ruling and allowing the deportation
process to proceed. [CJLF brief.] |
| Henry v. Lungren |
1/15/99 |
Win |
Habeas Corpus |
| Federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision rejecting
a child molester's claim that he was entitled to continue challenging
his conviction on habeas corpus even though he had completed serving
his sentence. The case involved the conviction of a Southern California
parochial school dean for molesting a kindergartner in 1988. Over
the next several years, his claims were reviewed by eight state
and federal courts. The California Supreme Court refused to review
his case further after he had been released from custody. In an
effort to avoid registering as a sex offender under "Megan's Law,"
the criminal sought to overturn his conviction on federal habeas
corpus. When a federal district court agreed to hear his claims,
CJLF joined the Attorney General's appeal. The Ninth Circuit utilized
CJLF arguments in its decision. [CJLF brief.] |
| In re Robbins |
8/3/98 |
Win |
Habeas Corpus |
| California Supreme Court decision upholding the state
time limit for raising new claims against a conviction or sentence.
The case involved a man facing execution for the kidnapping, rape
and murder of a 6-year-old Isla Vista boy in 1980. After 13 years
of review, the Supreme Court agreed to consider the murderer's request
that the state time limit be waived to allow review of new claims.
CJLF joined the case to argue that waiving the time limit to hear
this criminal's minor claims would open the door to unnecessary
review in other cases as well. The Court's decision adopted this
reasoning. |
| Monge v. California |
6/26/98 |
Win |
Double Jeopardy |
| United States Supreme Court decision announcing that,
with the exception of death penalty cases, the resentencing of convicted
criminals to correct errors does not violate the Constitution. The
case involved a drug dealer who received a longer prison sentence
under California's "Three Strikes" law due to a prior conviction
for assault with a deadly weapon. After an error discovered on appeal
reduced the sentence, the criminal claimed that a resentencing hearing
to correct the error would violate his constitutional protection
against double jeopardy. CJLF joined the case to argue that the
Constitution's double jeopardy protection concerns criminal trials
and should not be extended to sentencing after the criminal has
already been found guilty. The Court agreed, utilizing CJLF arguments
in its decision. |
| PA Board of Probation & Parole v. Scott |
6/22/98 |
Draw |
Search & Seizure |
| United States Supreme Court decision rejecting a parolee's
claim that firearms uncovered during a warrantless search of his
residence were unconstitutionally admitted at his parole revocation
hearing. CJLF joined the case to oppose this claim, arguing that
the inmate agreed to be subject to warrantless searches as a condition
of his release and that use of evidence from such a search could
not be excluded. The Court's decision did not address the validity
of the parole agreement, holding instead that the Exclusionary Rule
does not apply in parole revocation hearings. |
| PA Dept. of Corrections v. Yeskey |
6/22/98 |
Loss |
Civil Rights Suits |
| United States Supreme Court decision announcing that
the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) does allow state prison
inmates to file lawsuits if they are not provided equal access to
programs because they are disabled. The case involved a prison inmate
who sued the state because his high blood pressure made him ineligible
for boot camp. CJLF joined the case to argue that the management
of state prisons is beyond the scope of the ADA. |
| Sacramento County v. Lewis |
5/26/98 |
Win |
Civil Rights |
| United States Supreme Court decision preventing police
officers from being held personally liable for deaths or injuries
caused from their pursuit of fleeing criminals. The Court's decision
overturned a Ninth Circuit court ruling which permitted relatives
to sue officers any time a pursuit placed a criminal suspect in
danger. CJLF joined the case to argue that exposing police officers
to financial ruin for doing their jobs would result in police choosing
to let criminals escape. The Supreme Court agreed, announcing that
state laws granting officers immunity were valid unless an officer
intentionally caused a death or injury during a pursuit. [CJLF brief.] |
| Stewart v. Martinez-Villareal |
5/18/98 |
Loss |
Habeas Corpus |
| United States Supreme Court decision allowing federal
habeas corpus review of an Arizona murderer's claim that he was
not mentally competent to be executed. Although a state court review
had found the defendant competent, in 1997 the Ninth Circuit halted
his execution in order to conduct another review. CJLF joined the
case to argue that a condemned murderer's mental state should not
be reconsidered on habeas corpus if the state has already reviewed
the claim. |
| People v. Venegas |
5/11/98 |
Win |
Evidence |
| California Supreme Court decision upholding the use
of DNA testing as evidence in criminal trials. The case involved
a man convicted of raping a young Bakersfield woman. Following his
conviction, Venegas challenged the DNA evidence used to identify
him as unproven and unreliable. When the state Supreme Court agreed
to review this claim, CJLF filed arguments showing that DNA testing
is uniformly accepted in the scientific community as an identification
tool. The Court agreed, holding that DNA testing shall be presumed
as valid evidence in criminal trials. |
| People v. Peevy |
5/7/98 |
Win |
Self-Incrimination |
| California Supreme Court decision allowing the use of
an incriminating statement taken by police in violation of Mirandato
impeach the testimony of a criminal who lied on the witness stand.
The case involved a statement taken from an accomplice in an attempted
robbery. After asking to have his lawyer present during questioning,
the accomplice admitted his participation in the crime. When he
later took the stand and denied involvement, his prior statement
was introduced. On appeal, he claimed that use of the statement
violated his rights. CJLF joined the case to argue that because
the statement was not used as direct evidence, but only to counter
a lie on the witness stand, it was not a violation of Miranda. |
| Calderon v. Thompson |
4/29/98 |
Win |
Habeas Corpus |
| United States Supreme Court decision upholding the death
sentence of a California man convicted in 1983 of the rape and brutal
murder of a 20-year-old woman. The Supreme Court agreed to review
the case, following a last-minute Ninth Circuit Court ruling overturning
the death sentence. In its effort to spare this murderer, the Ninth
Circuit violated its own rules to reconsider the same claims previously
rejected by a three-judge panel of the same court. CJLF joined the
case to argue that the Ninth Circuit had abused its discretion in
order to avoid new limits on federal habeas corpus. The Supreme
Court utilized this argument in its decision. |
| United States v. Scheffer |
3/31/98 |
Win |
Evidence |
| United States Supreme Court decision to uphold the military's
prohibition against the introduction of polygraph evidence. The
case involved an airman found guilty of passing bad checks, using
drugs and being AWOL. On appeal, he claimed his rights were violated
by an evidence rule which prohibited the introduction of lie detector
tests. The high court agreed to review an appeals court ruling which
accepted this claim. CJLF joined the case to argue that not only
are polygraph tests proven unreliable, the Constitution reserves
the power to determine the admissibility of evidence to the states.
The Court utilized CJLF arguments in its decision. |
| Ohio Adult Parole Authority v. Woodard |
3/25/98 |
Win |
Due Process |
| United States Supreme Court decision rejecting an Ohio
murderer's claim that the state clemency process was required to
provide him with due process rights generally associated with trials.
Facing a death sentence for killing a Cleveland college student
during a carjacking, the murderer filed a civil rights suit attacking
the state's clemency process. After a federal appeals court accepted
the murderer's claim, the Supreme Court agreed to review the case.
CJLF argued that clemency is a matter of grace provided by the state
at its discretion and is beyond the jurisdiction of any federal
court. The Supreme Court's decision followed this reasoning. |
| Gray v. Maryland |
3/9/98 |
Loss |
Evidence |
| United States Supreme Court decision overturning the
manslaughter conviction of a Baltimore man based upon his claim
that the introduction of an accomplice's written confession, which
also implicated him in the murder, violated his constitutional right
to confront the witnesses against him. CJLF had argued that the
confession was properly admitted as an exception to the hearsay
rule. [CJLF brief.] |
| McLain v. Calderon |
1/26/98 |
Loss |
Habeas Corpus |
| Federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling overturning
the death sentence of an habitual sexual predator convicted of the
brutal rape and murder of two young women in 1979. CJLF had argued
that a 1996 Congressional Act prohibits federal courts from reconsidering
claims already decided by a state supreme court. The federal court
cited a 1997 United States Supreme Court ruling which announced
that the Act does not apply to pending cases. |
| Buchanan v. Angelone |
1/21/98 |
Win |
Death Penalty |
| United States Supreme Court ruling upholding the death
sentence of a Virginia murderer. Following his conviction for killing
four family members, Douglas Buchanan claimed jury instructions
given to the sentencing jury violated his constitutional rights.
CJLF joined the case to argue that the Virginia instructions follow
earlier high court requirements (affecting 38 states with death
penalty laws). The Court followed this reasoning in its precedent-setting
decision. [CJLF brief.] |
| Santamaria v. Horsley |
1/16/98 |
Win |
Double Jeopardy |
| Federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals "en banc" decision
which utilized CJLF arguments to overturn a prior ruling which had
prohibited the introduction of incriminating evidence at the retrial
of a man charged with the murder of his cousin. A retrial was ordered
due to an error in the first trial unrelated to the defendant's
guilt. CJLF joined the case to argue that the earlier Ninth Circuit
ruling conflicted with Supreme Court precedent rejecting a similar
challenge to relevant evidence. |
| People v. Whitson |
1/15/98 |
Win |
Self-incrimination |
| California Supreme Court decision upholding the second-degree
murder conviction of a man who, while trying to outrun police, caused
an accident killing two people. On appeal, the defendant claimed
that his incriminating statements were improperly introduced at
trial because his low I.Q. and the trauma of the accident left him
unable to understand his right to remain silent. CJLF argued that
once a suspect tells police he understands his rights, the statements
he makes are admissible. The Court's decision adopted this reasoning. |
| Lindh v. Murphy |
6/23/97 |
Loss |
Habeas Corpus |
| United States Supreme Court ruling announcing that the
new Congressional limits to federal habeas corpus review signed
into law in 1996 do not apply to criminal cases pending
before the federal courts. CJLF argued that because the new limits
change only which courts review a defendant's claims, and not the
right to present them, they can and should be applied to pending
cases. |
| Lambrix v. Singletary |
5/12/97 |
Win |
Habeas Corpus |
| United States Supreme Court decision to uphold the death
sentence of a Florida double murderer. On federal habeas corpus,
the murderer claimed that his sentence was invalid because of a
minor procedural change which occurred eight years after his trial.
CJLF argued that an earlier decision (won by CJLF) prevents rule
changes which occur after the trial and appeal are complete from
voiding a conviction or sentence. The Court utilized this argument
in its decision. |
| People v. Vera |
5/1/97 |
Win |
Jury Trial |
| California Supreme Court decision to uphold the prison
sentence of an habitual criminal who claimed that his sentencing
was void because he had his lawyer waive his right to have a jury
validate his prior convictions rather than waiving his right himself.
CJLF argued that defense lawyers routinely waive minor procedural
rights for their clients and that the right this claim is based
upon falls into that category. |
| People v. Tello |
4/17/97 |
Win |
Ineffective Assistance |
| California Supreme Court decision to uphold the drug
conviction of a man who claimed that, by failing to object to incriminating
evidence, his defense lawyer inadequately represented him. In an
earlier ruling, a state appeals court accepted this claim and voided
the conviction. CJLF argued that the claim was not properly before
the appeals court and that there was insufficient evidence to support
its ruling. |
| Villafuerte v. Stewart |
4/11/97 |
Win |
Habeas Corpus |
| Federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision reinstating
the conviction and death sentence of an Arizona murderer. In January
1996, this same court overturned the conviction in a ruling which
disagreed with the state Supreme Court holding that a trial error
was "harmless." CJLF encouraged the court to reconsider its original
ruling in light of a new federal law which requires federal
courts to give more respect to state Supreme Court decisions. |
| Maryland v. Wilson |
2/19/97 |
Win |
Search and Seizure |
| United States Supreme Court decision announcing that
police officers do have the authority to order passengers out of
vehicles stopped for traffic violations. The decision overturned
a Maryland appellate court ruling which held that it was unconstitutional
to grant police this power. CJLF joined the case to argue that increasing
the officer's control of traffic stops, while a minimal inconvenience
to passengers, is justified by its effect on officer safety. The
Court utilized this argument in its decision. |
| United States v. McVeigh & Nichols |
2/9/97 |
Draw |
Witnesses |
| Federal Court of Appeals ruling announcing that it does
not have jurisdiction to review a district judge's holding that
the victims of the Oklahoma City bombing, who plan to testify at
the sentencing hearing, cannot attend or observe the trial. In its
brief, CJLF argued that the lower court holding misinterpreted the
law and should be overturned. By declining review on jurisdictional
grounds, the appeals court left the victim issue unresolved. |
| Gallo v. Acuna |
1/29/97 |
Win |
Public Order |
| California Supreme Court decision upholding the use
of a court order declaring street gangs a "public nuisance" to prevent
gangs from terrorizing neighborhoods. The ACLU challenged a San
Jose court order claiming that it violated the constitutional rights
of gang members. CJLF argued that the Constitution does not protect
activity which jeopardizes the health and safety of the public.
The Court utilized CJLF arguments in its decision. |
| Garcia v. Superior Court |
1/9/97 |
Win |
Habitual Criminals |
| California Supreme Court decision prohibiting habitual
criminals from sidetracking a trial for a new crime with claims
that a past conviction was invalid because of an incompetent defense
attorney. An appellate court ruled that the Constitution required
judges to consider such claims when the defendant faced an increased
sentence for the past offense. CJLF cited its 1992 United States
Supreme Court victory in Custis v. United States, which
announced that the Constitution does not require this. California's
high court based its decision upon that precedent. |
| Cowan v. Superior Court |
12/9/96 |
Win |
Statute of Limitations |
| California Supreme Court decision which allows defendants
to plead guilty to a crime even if the statute of limitations for
that crime has expired. The case involved a man who pled guilty
to voluntary manslaughter for a 1985 killing. The trial judge refused
to accept the plea stating that the limitation could not be waived.
CJLF asked the Supreme Court to rule that a limitation can be waived
by a defendant who agrees to plead guilty to a crime. |
| People v. Hazelton |
12/6/96 |
Win |
Habitual Criminals |
| California Supreme Court decision allowing prior felony
convictions from other states to be counted to increase the sentences
of habitual criminals under the "Three Strikes" law. The case involved
an habitual criminal who claimed that his Nevada felony conviction
could not be counted because of a drafting error in the law. CJLF
argued that it was the clear intent of the proponents and the voters
to allow the counting of out-of-state convictions. This reasoning
was the basis of the Court's decision. |
| Felker v. Turpin |
6/28/96 |
Win |
Habeas Corpus |
| U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down a lower court
ruling which ordered Arizona to provide prison inmates with better
law libraries than are available to the public. CJLF joined the
case to encourage a decision preventing federal judges from expanding
the rights of inmates in order to take over management of state
prisons. The Court utilized CJLF arguments to establish
precedent which will help reduce the number of inmate lawsuits. |
| Gray v. Netherland |
6/20/96 |
Win |
Habeas Corpus |
| U.S. Supreme Court decision which incorporated CJLF
arguments to strengthen the limits on federal habeas corpus.
The case involved a Virginia man sentenced to death for a brutal
murder. On habeas corpus he claimed that evidence tying him to two
other killings should have been excluded from his sentencing hearing
because his lawyer was not notified in advance. CJLF argued that
by not asking for a delay in the hearing to prepare for the new
evidence, the murderer gave up the right to raise the issue on habeas
corpus. |
| Lewis v. Casey |
6/24/96 |
Win |
Prisons |
| U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down a lower court
ruling which ordered Arizona to provide prison inmates with better
law libraries than are available to the public. CJLF joined the
case to encourage a decision preventing federal judges from expanding
the rights of inmates in order to take over management of state
prisons. The Court utilized CJLF arguments to establish
precedent which will help reduce the number of inmate lawsuits. |
| People v. Superior Court (Romero) |
6/20/96 |
Loss |
Sentencing |
| California Supreme Court decision announcing that the
state's "Three Strikes and You're Out" law does not deprive judges
of the discretion to strike (ignore) the prior convictions of repeat
criminals and spare them from lengthy prison terms. CJLF had joined
this first Supreme Court test of the "Three Strikes" law to argue
that while its language did not specifically deny judicial discretion,
the clear intent of the law was to require judges to county prior
felony convictions qualifying habitual offenders for longer prison
terms. |
| Montana v. Egelhoff |
6/13/96 |
Win |
Mental Defenses |
| U.S. Supreme Court decision relying on CJLF argumentsto
uphold a Montana law which prohibits the use of voluntary intoxication
as a defense to first-degree murder. The case was accepted for review
after the Montana Supreme Court overturned a double-murderer's conviction,
announcing that the Constitution required states to allow the claim
that a person was too drunk to be held responsible for murder. CJLF
argued that there is no right to an intoxication defense and that
the elements of a crime are defined exclusively by state law. |
| Whren v. United States |
6/10/96 |
Win |
Search and Seizure |
| U.S. Supreme Court decision utilizing CJLF argumentsto
preserve police authority to investigate crimes during traffic stops.
The case involved two convicted drug dealers who appealed, claiming
the search of their car was illegal because officers used a traffic
stop (for blocking the street) as an excuse to look for drugs. CJLF
joined the case to encourage a decision announcing that the Constitution
does not prohibit police from investigating criminal suspects who
have been lawfully stopped for a traffic offense. |
| Loving v. United States |
6/3/96 |
Win |
Death Penalty |
| U.S. Supreme Court decision turning back an attempt
to weaken military justice. The case involved an Army private convicted
of two murders who claimed that his death sentence was unconstitutional
because the military justice system didn't follow the same procedures
required for civilian murderers. CJLF joined the case to argue that
the military system is constitutional and that military justice
must be swift and certain in order to preserve discipline. The
Foundation's reasoning was evident in the decision. |
| United States v. Armstrong |
5/30/96 |
Win |
Discovery |
| U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning a lower
court ruling which allowed defendants to delay their trials with
unsupported claims of racial bias. The case involved five men arrested
on federal drug and weapons charges who claimed that the U.S. Attorney
was selecting only blacks charged with these crimes for federal
prosecution. CJLF argued that specific racial groups often control
certain types of crime and that discrimination claims should be
backed by solid evidence. The Court utilized this reasoning
in its decision. |
| People v. Glaser |
10/12/95 |
Win |
Search and Seizure |
| California Supreme Court decision allowing police to
detain and identify visitors to suspected drug houses which are
being searched. The decision overturned a lower court ruling prohibiting
such detentions. CJLF joined the case to argue that control of people
entering a suspected drug-dealing location is essential to assure
the safety of officers conducting the search. The Court utilized
CJLF argument in its decision. |
| Vernonia School District v. Acton |
6/26/95 |
Win |
Search and Seizure |
| U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding an Oregon school
district's policy of requiring random drug testing of student athletes.
This policy was challenged by an ACLU lawsuit which resulted in
federal appeals court ruling announcing that it violated the constitutional
rights of students. The Court's decision set precedent allowing
similar policies to be implemented by schools in every states. The
decision incorporated arguments introduced by CJLF. |
| Sandin v. Conner |
6/19/95 |
Win |
Prisons |
| U.S. Supreme Court decision to deny convicts trial rights
at prison disciplinary hearings. The decision overturned a Ninth
Circuit of Appeals holding that the Constitution required Hawaiian
prison authorities to hold a mini-trial before disciplining an unruly
inmate. The Court utilized CJLF arguments to establish
precedent which will sharply reduce inmate lawsuits regarding prison
disciplinary procedures. |
| Garlotte v. Fordice |
6/19/95 |
Loss |
Habeas Corpus |
| U.S. Supreme Court decision which permits convicted
criminals to seek lengthy federal court review of sentences they
have already served. CJLF had joined the case to argue that criminals
serving consecutive sentences for several crimes should not be allowed
to waste court time and tax dollars disputing a sentence which has
expired. |
| United States v. Gaudin |
5/30/95 |
Loss |
Jury trial |
| U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding a lower court
finding that the Constitution requires that juries decide if a defendant's
false statements was important enough in the context in which it
was made that it amounted to fraud or perjury. In many states the
judge has decided the issue. CJLF joined the case to argue for limits
on federal court meddling in state trial procedure. |
| California Dept. of Corrections v. Morales |
3/25/95 |
Win |
Ex post facto |
| Precedent-setting U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding
a California law which permits the setting of parole hearings three
years apart for murderers serving life terms with the possibility
of parole. The Supreme Court accepted the case after the federal
court of appeals ruled that, by denying a life-sentenced double
murderer an annual parole hearing, the law unconstitutionally increased
his sentence. The court utilized CJLF arguments to reject
the lower court ruling. |
| Tobe v. Santa Ana |
3/24/95 |
Win |
Public Order |
| Precedent-setting California Supreme Court decision
rejecting "homeless advocates' " legal challenge to enforcement
of a Santa Ana law prohibiting camping in city parks and on sidewalks.
The case reached the court in the form of a lawsuit brought on behalf
of three vagrants which claimed that the law violated the Constitution
by punishing people because of their homeless status. The Court's
decision utilized CJLF argumentsto show that the law punished
only clearly defined conduct regarding the appropriate use of public
property. |
| Schlup v. Delo |
1/23/95 |
Win |
Habeas Corpus |
| United States Supreme Court decision setting precedent
to prevent repeated rounds of federal habeas corpus review of death
penalty cases. The Court's decision rejected a murderer's argument
that defendants should receive a second round of review on new evidence
that gives no more than weak support for a claim of innocence. The
Court's opinion utilized CJLF arguments to announce that only
claims of innocence supported by strong evidence could be considered
on a second round of federal habeas corpus. |
| People v. Leahy |
10/26/94 |
Win |
Evidence |
| California Supreme Court decision to uphold the state's
strict requirement which allows only well-established scientific
evidence to be admitted in court. Some participants in the case
had sought a ruling to loosen the standard rule on admitting scientific
evidence. CJLF joined the case to defend the tough California standard
in order to keep defendants from passing off untested scientific
theories as legitimate evidence. The Court cited CJLF arguments
in it decision. |
| Tuilaepa/Proctor v. California |
6/30/94 |
Win |
Death Penalty |
| U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding California's death
penalty. The decision rejected the claims of two brutal murderers
that a 1992 high court ruling, which invalidated part of Mississippi's
death penalty, also made California's law unconstitutional. CJLF
joined the case to encourage a decision narrowing the effect of
the earlier ruling and confirming the validity of California's law.
Foundation arguments were utilized in the Court's decision. |
| McFarland v. Texas |
6/30/94 |
Loss |
Habeas Corpus |
| U.S. Supreme Court decision allowing federal judges
to stay the execution of a death-sentenced murderer before receiving
a petition showing that further review of the case is justified.
CJLF had joined the case seeking a decision prohibiting the granting
of a stay until the judge evaluates the murderer's claims. The
Court did announce that stays of execution should not be granted
automatically, which is the current policy in California. |
| Nichols v. United States |
6/6/94 |
Win |
Habitual Criminals |
| U.S. Supreme Court decision rejected a repeat criminal's
claim that, based upon an earlier high court ruling, his prior convictions
could not be counted to increase his sentence because he had pled
guilty without the services of an attorney. CJLF joined the case
to encourage a decision overturning the earlier ruling. The Court's
decision used the Foundation's arguments. |
| Custis v. United States |
5/23/94 |
Win |
Habitual Criminals |
| U.S. Supreme Court decision rejected a repeat criminal's
claim that, based upon an earlier high court ruling, his prior convictions
could not be counted to increase his sentence because he had pled
guilty without the services of an attorney. CJLF joined the case
to encourage a decision overturning the earlier ruling. The Court's
decision used the Foundation's arguments. |
| Wade v. Vasquez |
5/16/94 |
Draw |
Death Penalty |
| Federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision ordering
a new sentencing hearing for a California murderer based upon his
ineffective assistance of counsel claim. CJLF joined the case to
oppose the more serious claim that an earlier Supreme Court ruling
in a Mississippi case voided California's death penalty. CJLF helped
win a high court decision to reject that claim in another case. |
| In re Christian S. |
5/16/94 |
Draw |
Self-Defense |
| California Supreme Court decision requiring a juvenile
court judge to reexamine the basis for finding a boy guilty of second-degree
murder for shooting a skinhead who was threatening his life. CJLF
joined the case to encourage a precedent-setting decision announcing
that the boy had acted in self-defense. In ordering further review
of the facts, the high court avoided making a decision on the self-defense
issue. |
| Stansbury v. California |
5/16/94 |
Draw |
Self-incrimination |
| U.S. Supreme Court ruling ordering California's high
court to reconsider a convicted murderer's claim that the statements
he made before receiving a Miranda warning should have
not been used to help convict him. CJLF joined the case to argue
that the statements were properly admitted because the murderer
made them before he was arrested. While it is likely that the California
court will follow this logic and deny the murderer's claim, until
this happens and the U.S. Supreme Court rejects the killer's appeal,
we will count this case as a draw. |
| Sandoval v. California |
3/22/94 |
Win |
Self-incrimination |
| U.S. Supreme Court decision to uphold the reasonable
doubt jury instruction used in California. A Los Angeles street
gang member, who was found guilty and sen | |
