Maples v. Thomas, No. 10-63
United States Supreme Court
Decision date: 1/18/2012
Loss |
Maples v. Thomas: U. S. Supreme Court review of a
convicted Alabama murderer’s claim that he is entitled to federal habeas corpus review of
his case even though he missed the state deadline for requesting review. Cory Maples was
convicted on strong evidence of the 1995 execution-style murders of two acquaintances and
the theft of the car of one of the victims. In 1997 he was convicted on all charges and
sentenced to death. After his conviction and sentence were upheld by the state court of
appeals and supreme court, attorneys from a New York law firm representing Maples pro bono
argued on state collateral review that his trial attorney had been ineffective. Prior to
the state court’s ruling denying these claims, the attorneys who had appeared in the
court quit the firm, and the firm failed to inform the court of the change of attorneys.
As a result, Maples did not receive notice of the ruling, and he missed the state deadline
for filing an appeal, which also prevented review of his claims on federal habeas corpus.
CJLF has joined the case to argue that Supreme Court precedent makes it clear that
criminals are not entitled to counsel for state collateral review or federal habeas
corpus. While Maples pro bono lawyers certainly failed him, absent compelling evidence
that he is innocent, the post-conviction review of his case should be over. The Court
issued a narrow opinion holding that on the unusual facts of this case, the failings
of the lawyers constitute cause for the default. |
Perry v. New Hampshire, No. 10-8974
United States Supreme Court
Decision date: 1/11/2012
Win |
Perry v. New Hampshire: U. S. Supreme Court review
of a habitual thief's claim that his constitutional rights were violated by the
admission of eyewitness testimony in his trial for burglarizing a car. On August 15,
2008, at 2:53 a.m., Barion Perry was caught in the parking lot of an apartment building
carrying stereo equipment stolen from a nearby car. A woman, whose husband reported the
crime, identified Perry as the man she saw break into a car in the well-lit parking lot
and steal the equipment. Her husband also identified Perry as the man he had seen
wandering around the lot looking into parked cars. At trial, Perry challenged the
testimony of the woman arguing her identification of him was unreliable and therefore
violated the 14th Amendment (the Due Process Clause) of the Constitution. The judge
disagreed, the testimony was admitted, and Perry was convicted. Perry’s claims regarding
his identification by the witness were later rejected by the New Hampshire Supreme Court
on direct appeal. When the U. S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Perry’s appeal, CJLF
joined the case to argue that, except in cases of police misconduct, the Constitution
leaves rules governing the introduction of evidence to the states. A decision supporting
the thief would have allowed criminals to waste years and millions in tax dollars with
federal court challenges to eyewitnesses. The Supreme Court agreed with our position
and affirmed the conviction by an 8-1 vote. |
Davis v. United States, No. 09-11328
United States Supreme Court
Decision date: 6/16/2011
Win |
Davis v. United States: U. S. Supreme Court decision
rejecting a criminal’s claim that his conviction as an ex-felon in possession of a
firearm was invalid because the police search that uncovered his gun violated the
Exclusionary Rule. The gun was found in Willie Gene Davis’s jacket pocket during
a search after a traffic stop. Davis had left his jacket in the car when police
asked him to step out. While the search was legal at the time, during Davis’s appeal
a new Supreme Court decision changed search rules to prohibit searching belongings
left in a vehicle during a traffic stop. After the appeals court upheld Davis’s
conviction because the police had followed the law at the time of the search, the
Supreme Court agreed to hear his appeal. CJLF joined the case to encourage a
decision finding that searches such as this one should fall under the “good faith”
exception established by United States v. Leon, a high court
decision CJLF helped win in 1984. The Court’s holding adopted that reasoning. |
Brown v. Plata, No. 09-1233
United States Supreme Court
Decision date: 5/23/2011
Loss |
Brown v. Plata: U. S. Supreme Court ruling upholding
the January 2010 order by a panel of three federal judges that requires California to
lower its prison population by 27% (currently 33,500 inmates), within two years to
remedy overcrowding, which was determined to violate inmates’ constitutional rights.
CJLF had joined the case to argue that the release order was invalid because the
selection of three notorious pro-defendant judges as panel members by the Chief Judge
of the Ninth Circuit guaranteed the result, and that once on the panel, the judges
manipulated the process to prevent any objective review of the inmates’ claims. |
Cullen v. Pinholster, No. 06-35669
United States Supreme Court
Decision date: 4/4/2011
Win |
Cullen v. Pinholster: 4/4/11. U. S. Supreme Court
decision utilizing CJLF arguments to reinstate the death sentence of a habitual criminal
who killed a man during a home burglary in Los Angeles. In 1984, Scott Pinholster was
convicted on strong evidence, including his own incriminating statements, and sentenced
to death. Over the next 25 years, six courts reviewed his claim that his defense
attorney had failed to adequately present evidence of his mental health problems. In
2009, after a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit reviewing the case on habeas corpus
rejected the claim, a larger en banc panel accepted it and overturned Pinholster’s
death sentence. The en banc panel, after reviewing a third psychiatric evaluation not
presented in state court, ruled that the California Supreme Court’s denial of
Pinholster’s claim was unreasonable. CJLF joined the high court appeal of that ruling
to argue that the Ninth Circuit violated federal law, which prohibits federal courts
reviewing a state court decision on habeas corpus from considering evidence never
presented to the state court. The court’s decision adopted that reasoning. |
Tolentino v. New York, No. 09-11556
United States Supreme Court
Decision date: 3/29/2011
Draw |
Tolentino v. New York: U. S. Supreme Court announcement
that it would not reconsider a New York Court of Appeals decision which denied a
defendant’s claim that police access to his criminal record during a traffic stop
amounted to an illegal search. Last fall, the high court announced it would hear
Jose Tolentino’s claim that because police illegally stopped his car for excessive
noise in 2005, they could not introduce his record, which indicated that he was driving
on a suspended license and had at least 10 prior suspensions. While the legality of
the traffic stop was never determined, the New York court held that the government’s
own records do not fall under the protection of the Exclusionary Rule and cannot be
excluded from trial. Before the Supreme Court, CJLF argued that the rules governing
traffic stops do not prevent police from learning a driver’s identity and checking his
or her criminal record. After reviewing briefs and hearing oral argument, the Court
determined that it would not disturb the lower court’s holding. |
|
