Watson v. United States
U.S. Sup. Ct. 12-10-2007
Person did not “use” firearm under 18 U.S.C. §924(c)(1)(A) when he received it in trade for drugs (Stevens, J.) 
| | |
Kimbrough v. United States
U.S. Sup. Ct. 12-10-2007
In accordance with (I)Booker(I), district courts may depart from sentencing guidelines based on lack of support for statutory disparity between powder cocaine and crack cocaine (Ginsburg, J.)
| | |
Gall v. United States
U.S. Sup. Ct. 12-10-2007
Courts of appeals must review all sentences under deferential abuse of discretion standard without regard to extent of sentencing disparity, if any, from guidelines range (Stevens, J.)
| | |
Logan v. United States
U.S. Sup. Ct. 12-04-2007
The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit ruling that a defendant had correctly received a sentence enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984. The Supreme Court held that the act's exception does not cover the case of an offender who retained civil rights at all times and whose legal status, post-conviction, remained in all respects unaltered by any state dispensation.
| | |
Allen v. Siebert
U.S. Sup. Ct. 11-05-2007
Postconviction petition that was untimely under state law was untimely under AEDPA statute without regard to whether state-law time limit was jurisdictional or affirmative defense (per curiam)
| | |
Panetti v. Quarterman
U.S. Sup. Ct. 06-28-2007
The Supreme Court reversed and remanded a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in a case involving a habeas petition filed by a mentally ill death row inmate. The petitioner was convicted of capital murder in a Texas state court and sentenced to death despite his well-documented history of mental illness.
| | |
Rita v. United States
U.S. Sup. Ct. 06-21-2007
The Supreme Court affirmed a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in which the 4th Circuit applied a "presumption of reasonableness" to a district court's sentence of a criminal defendant. The issue on appeal was whether a court of appeals may apply such a presumption to a lower court's sentence. The issue arose when the defendant, after his jury trial conviction for perjury, making false statements, and obstructing justice.
| | |
Brendlin v. California
U.S. Sup. Ct. 06-18-2007
Passenger may challenge constitutionality of traffic stop.
| | |
Bowles v. Russell
U.S. Sup. Ct. 06-14-2007
The Supreme Court upheld a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit in which the circuit court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the petitioner-appellant's appeal for habeas relief. The petitioner had failed to file a timely notice of appeal after a federal district court's denial of habeas relief and sought to reopen the filing period pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(6), 28 U.S.C. 2107, which allows a district court to grant a 14-day extension under conditions.
| | |
Fry v. Pliler
U.S. Sup. Ct. 06-11-2007
The Supreme Court affirmed a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit considering whether a federal habeas court must assess the prejudicial impact of constitutional error in a state court criminal trial under the "substantial and injurious effect" standard set forth in Brecht v. Abrahamson (1993).
| | |
Erickson v. Pardus
U.S. Sup. Ct. 06-04-2007
Dismissal of prison inmate's 42 U.S.C. §1983 claim that prison wrongfully terminated treatment for life-threatening disease was contrary to pleading standard mandated by federal procedural rules.
| | |
Uttecht v. Brown
U.S. Sup. Ct. 06-04-2007
The Supreme Court reversed a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in which the circuit court found that a state trial court had violated the defendant-respondent's Sixth and 14th Amendment rights when it excused a certain juror for cause. The Ninth Circuit erred in holding that the California trial court's decision, affirmed by the California Supreme Court, to excuse capital juror who expressed equivocal views regarding death penalty was contrary to established federal law.
| | |
Los Angeles County v. Rettele
U.S. Sup. Ct. 05-21-2007
The Supreme Court reversed a judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which had concluded that police deputies violated the Fourth Amendment and were not entitled to qualified immunity when they searched a house pursuant to a valid warrant.
| | |
Roper v. Weaver
U.S. Sup. Ct. 05-21-2007
District court erred in concluding that, if criminal defendant chose to seek certiorari, he had to exhaust that remedy before he could initiate habeas proceeding.
| | |
Schriro v. Landrigan
U.S. Sup. Ct. 05-14-2007
The Supreme Court reversed and remanded a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit holding that the respondent's counsel had failed to provide effective assistance at the sentencing hearing for the respondent's felony murder conviction. The Court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to grant the respondent an evidentiary hearing, because he could not develop a factual record entitling him to habeas relief.
| | |
Scott v. Harris
U.S. Sup. Ct. 04-30-2007
The Supreme Court reversed a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit denying the petitioner, a police deputy, summary judgment on his qualified-immunity claim in a suit brought by the respondent for injuries suffered in a high-speed pursuit after the petitioner applied his push bumper to the respondent's car, causing it to leave the road and crash.
| | |
Smith v. Texas
U.S. Sup. Ct. 04-25-2007
A Texas appellate court misinterpreted a federal law on remand of a capital case from the Supreme Court, wrongfully preventing the jury from considering mitigating evidence at the penalty phase of the trial.
| | |
James v. United States
U.S. Sup. Ct. 04-18-2007
The Supreme Court affirmed a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit upholding the petitioner's 15-year mandatory sentence provided by the Armed Career Criminal Act. The Court agreed that attempted burglary as defined by Florida law is a "violent felony" for purposes of the act, citing the risk of confrontation with an innocent person during the crime.
| | |
Lawrence v. Florida
U.S. Sup. Ct. 02-20-2007
For purposes of determining whether AEDPA time for filing habeas petition had expired, state habeas application was no longer "pending" after state appellate court had entered final judgment but petition for certiorari had been filed with U.S. Supreme Court.
| | |
Cunningham v. California
U.S. Sup. Ct. 01-22-2007
The Supreme Court held that California's determinate-sentencing law, which allows the judge to find facts by a preponderance of the evidence that will permit an elevated sentence, violates the defendant's Sixth Amendment and 14th Amendment rights.
| | |
Burton v. Stewart
U.S. Sup. Ct. 01-09-2007
In a per curiam opinion, the Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit for lack of jurisdiction. Burton, who seeks federal relief from a state conviction, did not fulfill the gatekeeping requirements of 28 U.S.C.2244(b). Burton's petition is a "second or successive" petition requiring the district court's authorization, which he never sought or received.
| | |
United States v. Resendiz-Ponce
U.S. Sup. Ct. 01-09-2007
The Supreme Court held that the respondent's indictment for illegally attempting to re-enter the United States under 8 U.S.C.1326(a) was not procedurally defective, nor did it deprive him of a significant protection conferred by the right to a grand jury.
| | |
United States v. Resendiz-Ponce
U.S. Sup. Ct. 01-09-2007
Indictment for attempting to reenter U.S. after deportation implicitly alleged defendant engaged in necessary overt act by alleging he "attempted" to enter country (Stevens, J.)
| | |
Burton v. Stewart
U.S. Sup. Ct. 01-09-2007
State prisoner seeking postconviction relief on claim that Blakely announced new rule failed to comply with gatekeeping requirements of 28 U.S.C. §2244 (b).
| | |
In re Burton
U.S. Sup. Ct. 12-18-2006
Defendant's dissatisfaction with defense counsel's negative assessment of his chances at trial did not constitute conflict over trial strategy.
| | |
