These cases are not yet final, but bear close watching due to their potential impact on law enforcement. Ideally, once the case becomes final, the blurb about the case will move to the case update list, but I am not always ideal and you may occasionally find cases lurking on both lists.
Knowles v. Mirzayance, ___ U.S. ___, ___ S.Ct. ___, ___ L.Ed.3d ___ (No. 07-1315, cert.granted 6/27/2008). In the criminal case in California, the justices agreed to review another ruling by the federal appeals court in San Francisco, this one in favor of a man who was convicted of fatally stabbing and shooting his cousin in Los Angeles. The appeals court said Alexandre Mirzayance is entitled to a new trial because his lawyer persuaded him not to pursue an insanity defense. A jury convicted Mirzayance of first-degree murder, although the lawyer had sought lesser charges. The Court will consider whether the appeals court should have deferred to state court rulings that affirmed the conviction.
Schriro v. Landrigan, ___ U.S. ___, ___ S.Ct. ___, ___ L.Ed.3d ___ (No. 05-1575 to be argued January 9, 2007). What must a defense attorney do when faced with a client who, after being found guilty of murder, refuses to allow family members to testify prior to his sentencing, even though those family members would introduce evidence that may result in the reduction of his sentence? In this case, the Supreme Court will address the extent to which a criminal defendant may claim that his defense attorney acted incompetently by not introducing mitigating evidence during his trial, even when the defense attorney directly follows his orders not to do so. Further, the Court will determine the extent to which a federal court may review and overturn a defendant's state court sentence if he claims his attorney acted incompetently.
Rothgery v. Gillespie County, Texas, ___ U.S. ___, ___ S.Ct. ___, ___ L.Ed.3d ___ (No. 07-440, to be argued 3/17/08). On July 15, 2002, Walter Allen Rothgery was arrested without warrant and appeared before a local magistrate as required by Texas law. Following his release on bond, Rothgery made several written requests for appointed counsel to Gillespie County officials, but county officials failed to appoint defense counsel until after a grand jury indicted Rothgery six months later. Rothgery sued Gillespie County under 42 U.S.C. º 1983, claiming that the County's failure to grant his request until after indictment violated his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Rothgery contended that his initial appearance before the magistrate constituted the commencement of "adversary judicial proceedings," which triggers an accused person's Sixth Amendment right to appointed counsel under U.S. Supreme Court precedent. Gillespie County supports the Fifth Circuit's holding that Rothgery's right to counsel did not attach until after Rothgery's indictment because, until that time, the state had not committed itself to prosecute Rothgery. The decision in this case will determine when the right to counsel vests, and will affect the administration of criminal proceedings and law enforcement.
Continues: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/07-440.html
United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, ___ U.S. ___, ___ S.Ct. ___, ___ L.Ed.3d ___ (No. 05-352)(Oral argument date: April 18, 2006). The Sixth Amendment to the United States constitution provides: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the rightàto have the assistance of counsel for his defense." In Cuauhtémoc Gonzalez-Lopez's criminal trial, the district court refused to allow Gonzalez-Lopez to hire the attorney of his choice. On review, the Eighth Circuit held that this denial violated Gonzalez-Lopez's Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Gonzalez-Lopez argues that the Eighth Circuit's holding that the district court violated his Sixth Amendment right should stand. The government argues that the Eighth Circuit's ruling conflicts with the Supreme Court's 'right to counsel' decisions, which hold that a criminal defendant cannot obtain reversal of his conviction unless he establishes that an alleged error implicating his Sixth Amendment right to counsel compromised his right to a fair trial.
Van de Kamp and Livesay v. Goldstein, ___ U.S. ___, ___ S.Ct. ___, ___ L.Ed.3d ___ (No. 07-854, cert. granted 4/14/2008). Thomas Goldstein was convicted of a 1979 murder on the strength of a jailhouse informant's testimony that Goldstein had confessed to the crime. Goldstein lived nearby in a rented garage but there was no physical evidence to link him to the killing and the weapon was never found. The informant testified that he received no benefit in return, but evidence that came to light later suggesting he had struck a deal to get a lighter sentence. Two federal judges and a federal appeals panel eventually ruled that Goldstein was wrongly convicted and he was freed in April 2004. Goldstein served 24 years in prison before his murder conviction was overturned. Goldstein sued former District Attorney John K. Van de Kamp, who later became California attorney general, and his former chief deputy, Curt Livesay, claiming that as supervisors they had a policy of relying on jailhouse informants even though it sometimes led to false evidence. Individual prosecutors typically may not be sued for their decisions, but the trial judge and the 9th Circuit both said Goldstein could proceed. Van de Kamp and Livesay are asking the Supreme Court to reverse that ruling.
Pearson v. Callahan, ___ U.S. ___, ___ S.Ct. ___, ___ L.Ed.3d ___ (No. 07-751, cert. granted 3/24/08). In addition to the questions presented by the petition, the parties are directed to brief and argue the following question:"Whether the Court's decision in Saucier v. Katz, 533 U. S. 194 (2001) should be overruled?" The 2001 decision in Saucier established a two-step test for deciding whether police deserve immunity from lawsuits claiming they violated someone's constitutional rights. First, it must be established that the claimant's constitutional rights were violated. If so, the next question is whether that right was clearly established -- in other words, well-enough known that a reasonable officer should have known what it was.
In the case granted Monday, none of the parties questioned that precedent, though it led to a lower court decision against the police. The case stems from a police raid in Filmore, Utah on Afton Callahan's home in 2002. After an informant entered the home and bought illegal drugs, police raided the house without a warrant. Applying the Saucier test, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found the raid was unconstitutional, and the rights violated were clearly established.
Peter Stirba of Stirba & Associates in Salt Lake City, the lawyer for the police, confirms that neither he nor any lower court opinions urged the Court to reconsider Saucier. "All the parties considered the law as settled," said Stirba, who would not say if he was surprised at the Court's action. "If this issue is of interest to the Court, we will address it."
Wallace v. City of Chicago, ___ U.S. ___, ___ S.Ct. ___, ___ L.Ed.3d ___ (No.05-1240, set for argument 11/6/06). When may a plaintiff o longer bring a lawsuit against the police for arresting him in violation of the Fourth Amendment? Andre Wallace. a 15-year old, was arrested in 1994 for murder. Shortly after his arrest, Wallace was interrogated, and he made an incriminating statement that were used against him at trial. Wallace was convicted. Four years later, in 1998, the Illinois Appellate Court reversed Wallace's conviction, finding in a series of appeals that the detectives who arrested him had lacked probable cause and that his incriminating response to the subsequent interrogation represented the fruit of an unlawful arrest. The appellate court remanded the case for a new trial. After an additional four years had passed, in 2002, the prosecutor decided to drop the case altogether. About one year later, Wallace sued the officers for false arrest. The federal court granted the defendant summary judgement, finding that Wallace's cause of action arose at the time of the arrest, not when the appellate court reversed the conviction or when the prosecutor chose to drop the charge.
Hartman v. Moore, ___ U.S. ___, ___ S.Ct. ___, ___ L.Ed.3d ___ (No. , 2005)(388 F.3d 871 (D.C. Cir. 2004)). Are law enforcement agents liable under Bivens for retaliatory prosecution in violation of the First Amendment when the prosecution is supported by probable cause?
Moore was indicted, charged with criminal offenses that were later dismissed. Moore sued under Bivens alleging that Postal Inspectors had charged him in retaliation for his political activities. The Inspectors countered that since the charges were supported by probable cause, they are entitled to qualified immunity. The clearly established law of the D.C. Circuit barred government officials from bringing charges they would not have pursued absent a retaliatory motive, regardless of whether they had probable cause to do so.
Baze v. Rees, ___ U.S. ___, ___ S.Ct. ___, ___ L.Ed.3d ___ (No. 07-5439, set for argument 1/7/08). Ralph Baze and Thomas K. Bowling brought a civil suit against the State of Kentucky in Franklin Circuit Court, claiming that the lethal injection procedure that the state uses creates an unnecessary risk of pain and suffering and is thus in violation of the Eighth Amendment. After denying the state's motion to dismiss, the trial judge found that the lethal injection procedure was not unconstitutional. The Supreme Court of Kentucky affirmed, holding that the U.S. Supreme Court has never required a completely painless execution. Baze and Bowling argue that Kentucky's lethal injection procedure violates the Eighth Amendment because it creates a "significant and unnecessary risk of pain," in addition to citing poor administrative measures and untrained personnel. Kentucky, however, argues that a method of execution only amounts to "cruel and unusual punishment" if it creates a "substantial risk" of unnecessary pain, and Kentucky's procedure does not meet that threshold. By granting certiorari in this case, the Supreme Court has seemingly imposed a "de facto moratorium" on lethal injections across the country. While the outcome of this case is unlikely to outlaw the death penalty on the whole, it may have a profound effect on the kinds of procedures that will be used to carry out future executions.
Continues: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/07-5439.html
City of Newark v. Betty Lucas, ___ Oh. ___ (Case No. Unknown. Case profiled in New York Times 5/30/03). Ohio Supreme Court to consider whether city can prosecute for complicity in violation of a restraining order. Ms. Lucas had a protective order issued for her benefit after several domestic situations. She invited her ex-husband Joseph to a birthday party for one of their children. They started drinking and then fighting, and soon they were explaining themselves to the police. She was convicted of domestic violence and violating the restraining order and received a 90 day suspended jail sentence and two years probation. Joseph was convicted of violating the restraining order and received a 90 day suspended jail sentence and paid a fine of $100. An appeals court in Canton affirmed that decision last year, holding that Ms. Lucas had "recklessly exposed herself to the offender from whom she has sought protection." The appeals court decision broke new ground, said Cheryl Hanna, an expert in domestic violence law who teaches at Vermont Law School. "This is the first case," Professor Hanna said, "in which a court has held that it's allowable for the state to charge a woman with aiding and abetting her abuser in violating a restraining order."
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, ___ U.S. ___, ___ S.Ct. ___, ___ L.Ed.3d ___, 2008 WL 695627. The Supreme Court has granted certiorari to determine whether a state forensic analyst's laboratory report is testimonial and subject to Crawford. [NOTE: Kansas has already ruled that it is testimonial. State v. Laturner, 38 Kan. App. 2d 193, 197, 163 P.3d 367 (2007).]
Whorton v. Bockting, ___ U.S. ___, ___ S.Ct. ___, ___ L.Ed.3d ___ (No. 05-595)(Oral argument: November 1, 2006). Marvin Bockting, a criminal defendant, was convicted of rape and sentenced to life in prison by a Nevada Court. He challenges the constitutionality of the court's admitting hearsay testimony of his victim without opportunity for cross- examination. While no such requirement was in place at the time of his conviction, the Supreme Court has since decided that such cross-examination is necessary for the admission of hearsay testimony. The Supreme Court is now asked to determine whether this new rule must be retroactively applied. This case will represent another data point in the set defining the scope of retroactivity of criminal procedure rules. Moreover, it will clarify federal courts' powers to hear cases on writs of habeas corpus when the issue at hand is the retroactive application of a criminal procedure rule.
Hartman v. Moore, ___ U.S. ___, ___ S.Ct. ___, ___ L.Ed.3d ___ (No. 04-1495)(to be argued 1/10/06). William Moore was CEO of a company that manufactured optical scanning technology. In an effort to establish a sales contract for that technology with the United States Postal Service, Moore initiated a media and lobbying campaign that criticized the technology and policies the USPS had in place. It was later revealed that individuals involved in Moore's campaign had entered into two illegal payoff schemes, and, at the urging of the USPS, the government prosecuted Moore for involvement in those schemes. The government's case against Moore was quickly dismissed, and Moore brought a civil suit against the prosecutor and postal inspectors claiming they had prosecuted him to retaliate for his criticism of the USPS. After a series of hearings before trial and appellate courts, Moore's claim against the prosecutor has been dismissed and the Supreme Court must now decide whether the postal inspectors are immune from suit because the prosecution, although retaliatory, was supported by probable cause. The question presented is whether law enforcement agents may be liable under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, for retaliatory prosecution in violation of the First Amendment when the prosecution was supported by probable cause.
Watson v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, ___ S.Ct. ___, ___ L.Ed.3d ___ (No. 06-571, scheduled for argument 10/9/2007). Following a transaction in which he exchanged illegally- obtained prescription drugs for a firearm, Petitioner Watson was prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. º 924(c)(1)(A) for "use" of a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime. In addition to sentences imposed under other federal statutes, Watson received a mandatory consecutive five year sentence, imposed under 18 U.S.C. º 924(c)(1)(D). Watson pled guilty but reserved the right to challenge whether the agreed-upon facts supported his conviction. The Fifth Circuit confirmed his conviction, finding that receiving a firearm constitutes "use" under the statute and under Supreme Court law set forth in Bailey v. United States, which defined "use" as "active employment" of the firearm. Watson argues that receiving a firearm is insufficient to constitute use, while the United States contends that both receiving and offering a firearm constitute "active employment" and therefore "use" under the statute. The Court's decision will set uniform standards of punishment throughout the country. A finding for Watson could reduce crowding in an already overburdened prison system, while a decision for the United States could reduce the strain on a similarly overburdened court system.
Continues: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/06-571.html
Parker v. District of Columbia, ___ F.3d ___ (D.C. Cir. No. , filed /2007). A federal appeals court struck down a gun control law on Second Amendment grounds. If the full United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit does not step in and reverse the 2-to-1 panel decision striking down a law that forbids residents to keep handguns in their homes, the question of the meaning of the Second Amendment is almost certainly headed to the Supreme Court. The answer there is far from certain. Nine federal appeals courts around the nation have adopted the collective rights view, opposing the notion that the amendment protects individual gun rights.
United States v. Emerson, ___ F. Supp. ___ (D. Tx, No. ______ filed 9/8/99). A Texas U.S. District Court judge ruled that the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment applies to individuals, not just militias. Emerson was arrested for brandishing a handgun in front of his wife and her daughter, and charged with violating a 1994 federal law that prohibits someone under a restraining order from owning a gun. District Judge Sam Cummings said the 1994 law was unconstitutional based on a "historical examination of the right to bear arms, from English antecedents to the drafting of the Second Amendment." He said the right to bear arms is a protected individual right. The ruling is being appealed in the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Clark v. Arizona, ___ U.S. ___, ___ S.Ct. ___, ___ L.Ed.3d ___ (No. 05-5966)(Oral argument date: April 19, 2006). On June 21, 2000, 17-year-old Eric Clark shot and killed Flagstaff, Arizona Police Officer Jeffrey Moritz. At the time, Clark had been suffering from delusions and hallucinations and had been diagnosed as suffering schizophrenia and psychosis. At trial, he attempted to present evidence of his mental illness in order to negate the mens rea knowledge and intent elements of first degree murder. The government, however, argued successfully that under Arizona's definition of insanity (A.R.S. § 13-502(A)) and State v. Mott, evidence of Clark's mental illness was impermissible to negate the mens rea of the crime. Clark was subsequently convicted of first degree murder. He appeals the conviction, arguing that preventing him from using evidence of his mental disease to negate the mens rea of the crime violates his Due Process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/05-5966.html
Medellín v. Texas, ___ U.S. ___, ___ S.Ct. ___, ___ L.Ed.3d ___ (No. 06-984, scheduled for argument 8/10/2007). José Ernesto Medellín, a Mexican national, was convicted of capital murder in Texas district court and sentenced to death for his participation in the rape and murder of two teenage girls. Medellín was not advised after his arrest of his rights under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations to contact a Mexican consular official.
Under Texas law, Medellín waived his rights by not asserting them at trial. Pursuant to the Avena decision of the International Court of Justice and a memorandum issued by the President directing state courts to give effect to it, Medellín argues that Texas courts must review and reconsider his sentence. On the other hand, the State of Texas contends that the President lacks the authority to unilaterally transform an international obligation into domestic law. The State of Texas also argues that the President's memorandum infringes on the sovereignty of the states and that Medellín has already received the judicial review prescribed by the Avena decision. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals refused to give effect to the President's memorandum on the grounds that it exceeds his constitutional powers. How the Supreme Court decides this case will reflect its views on the separation of powers between the three branches of government, and whether individuals may enforce the Vienna Convention in court. This decision will clarify the President's authority in foreign affairs and may adversely impact the willingness of foreign nations to enter into future treaties with the United States.
Continues: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/06-984.html
Guerrero v. Gates, # CV 00-7165 WJR, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12520 (C.D. Cal. 8/28/2000). Federal court refused to dismiss RICO claims brought by a LAPD Rampart Division plaintiff. The plaintiff raised 1983 claims, alleging that LAPD Rampart CRASH officers violated his 4th and 14th Amendment rights by unlawfully detaining him, illegally searching him, planting narcotics on him, and illegally arresting him. He also seeks relief under the RICO statute. RICO makes it unlawful for any person to: (1) use money derived from a pattern of racketeering activity to acquire or maintain control of an enterprise, (2) acquire or maintain control of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity, (3) conduct an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity, or (4) conspire to do so. In bringing a motion to dismiss, the defendant did not dispute that the necessary RICO elements were met. Rather, defendant Parks argued that the plaintiff lacked standing to pursue RICO claims. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants maintained control and conducted the affairs of the LAPD Rampart CRASH unit through a pattern of racketeering activities, including attempted murder, extortion, narcotics dealing, and witness tampering, in violation of 18 U.S.C.1962(b) and 1962(c). "A number of courts have accepted or shown a disposition in favor of allowing RICO claims for the pecuniary losses associated with personal injuries caused by racketeering. * * * " Accordingly, the Court finds that Guerrero has standing to pursue his RICO claims."
Croddy v. United States, ___ F.3d ___ (D.C. 2000). Suit challenges the FBI's use of polygraph for pre-employment screening. Requests declaratory judgment.
C.L. Trustees v. Lockheed Martin, San Diego Superior Court case no. GIC773619. Class action lawsuit against red light camera contractor was certified in March 2003 in San Diego The municipal agencies contract with ACS (formally Lockheed Martin IMS) to administer thus program. Attorney for the contractor ACS, Chris Lui of O'Melveny & Myers (213) 430-6112.
Arizona v. Gant, ___ U.S. ___, ___ S.Ct. ___, ___ L.Ed.3d ___ (No. 07-542, cert. granted 02/25/2008). The Supreme Court has agreed to decide when police without a warrant can search the vehicle of a person who is under arrest. Rodney Joseph Gant was handcuffed, seated in the back of a patrol car and under police supervision when Tucson, Ariz., police officers searched his car. A sharply divided Arizona Supreme Court ruled that the search violated the Fourth Amendment. The state is asking the U.S. high court to overturn that ruling. The issue for cert. is: "Does the Fourth Amendment require law enforcement officers to demonstrate a threat to their safety or a need to preserve evidence related to the crime of arrest in order to justify a warrantless vehicular search incident to arrest conducted after the vehicle's recent occupants have been arrested and secured?"
United States v. v. Grubbs, ___ U.S. ___, ___ S.Ct. ___, ___ L.Ed.3d ___ (No. , 2005)(377 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2004)). Does the Fourth Amendment require suppression of evidence when officers conduct a search under an anticipatory warrant after the warrant's triggering condition is satisfied, but the triggering condition is not set forth either in the warrant itself or in an affidavit that is both incorporated into the warrant and shown to the person whose property is being searched?
Mayfield v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Case No. and District unknown. Profiled in the Topeka Capital Journal on October 5, 2004. The Portland lawyer mistakenly arrested by the FBI in the Madrid train bombings sued the U.S. government Monday, claiming his rights were trampled on because of his Muslim faith. Brandon Mayfield, a 38-year-old convert to Islam, is seeking unspecified damages and a ruling that key provisions of the Patriot Act are unconstitutional. Mayfield is a Kansas native and graduate of the Washburn University School of Law. He accused the government of violating his civil liberties by wiretapping his Oregon home and filing misleading affidavits to justify his two-week imprisonment. "The Patriot Act goes way too far in taking away our privacy and freedom as U.S. citizens," Mayfield told The Topeka Capital-Journal in a May interview. "Not even a 'war on terror' allows the federal government to deprive U.S. citizens of their constitutionally protected rights," Mayfield's attorneys said in a statement.
City of Winder vs. McDougald, ___ Ga. ___ (argument scheduled before Georgia Supreme Court on 3/25/03). The family of a 14-year-old girl who crashed during a police chase and killed herself sued the police for negligence during the chase. The chase occurred after the teen, who did not have a drivers license, took a car for a drive at night. When police attempted to stop her for operating the vehicle without headlights, the girl fled. The pursuit reached speeds in excess of 70 miles an hour through downtown Winder and ended with the girlÆs automobile striking a curb and a utility pole, crushing the hood on the driverÆs side and killing the girl. The officerÆs supervisor told him to break off the chase, he said, but the officer claims he did not hear the command. The trial court granted the officer's motion for summary judgment, but denied the city's motion.
Roper v. Simmons, ___ U.S. ___, ___ S.Ct. ___, ___ L.Ed.3d ___ (No. , 2004) (No. 03-633). This case presents the Supreme Court with two questions: whether or not the execution of those who were sixteen or seventeen at the time of a crime is "cruel and unusual" and whether the lower courts may analyze evolving standards in order to determine the former. The Court will likely rely upon the principles in Atkins to determine whether or not to overturn its conflicting decision in Stanford v. Kentucky (492 U.S. 361 (1989)). Legislative activity since Stanford has significantly changed, and this change is bolstered by the views of germane organizations and the decreasing number of states imposing the death penalty on juvenile offenders. The Court will thus determine whether the weight of this evidence is enough to overcome the goals served by the death penalty.
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/03-633.html
Phalp v. City of Overland Park, ___ F.Supp. ___ (D. Kan., Case No. Unknown 2000). Plaintiffs allege Overland Park police failed to protect their daughter when they took no action after 17-year old Aubrey Phalp reported a threat and/or attack by four men. Plaintiffs claim police told Phalp she was not credible because she suffered from bipolar disorder and was not taking her medication. Todd Miller Deal was convicted of premeditated first-degree murder and is serving a life sentence for Phalp's death. Case Profiled in 10 K.L. 377, 378 (Week of Aug. 6-12, 2000).
Arizona v. Gant, ___ U.S. ___, ___ S.Ct. ___, ___ L.Ed.2d ___ (No. 02-1019, cert. granted 4/21/2003, vacated and remanded for consideration in light of State v. Dean, 76 P. 3d 429 (Ariz. 2003) Oct 20 2003, rehearing denied 12/15/03). Can police can search stopped cars? Rodney Gant had just parked his car in his driveway, and did not know the police were after him. Officers searched the car and found cocaine & drug paraphernalia. An Arizona appeals court suppressed the evidence because Gant did not know police were after him when he parked (Why does it matter?)
Village of Dolton, Illinois v. Taser International, 05-C-4126 (Northern District of Illinois, ED). Class action complaint filed 7/18/05 alleging that Taser products are unsafe.
John J. Knoll
July 7, 2008