- Recent U.S. Supreme Court Decisions and News from the Supreme Court, including: search engine for Supreme Court Cases, in FindLaw
- A History of the Supreme Court
U.S. Supreme Court 2006
Recent Decisions
This site produced by LAWCHEK®.
.
Hosted by LAWCHEK®
Lawchek© 2001
June 16, 2003
US Supreme Court Decision
Sell v. US
SELL v US adopted Justice Kennedy's concurring opinion in the prior case of RIGGENS. Essentially, medications can be forcibly administered under SELL only "rarely." The following adjudications must be made. First, the government is advised to try civil adjudication such as a CA Civil Code 5150 determination. This is not binding law, just dictum. This is where the dangerousness criterion comes in. Second, the government must show that the side effects of medicating the defendant will not hamper the defendant's ability to meaningfully participate in his defense -- sedation is an example of how a defendant may be able to overcome a petition to medicate him/her involuntarily. Third -- & this is where the dissenters wrote their opinion, the defendant can interrupt his/her trial to take an appeal on any matter that would if carried out make his/her situation irredeemably worse, such as forced medication. Fourth, the government has to show that forced medication is the least restrictive alternative. The Court mentioned both an Am Psychological Association brief that states that there are treatments other than medications to combat psychosis, as well as an APA brief that stated that meds are the 1st resort. That's the gist of the 19-page majority opinion.
Interpreted by Deborah Michelle Sanders, Esq., Executive Director/President of The Sapling Project which promotes recovery from major mental illness through high-tech jobs. The Sapling Project can be found on the web at www.saplingproject.org
[ 2000-2001 Term | 1999-2000 Term | 1998-1999 Term | All ]
Criminal Law and Procedure Decisions of the
October 2000-2001 Supreme Court TermBy Solomon L. Wisenberg of Ross, Dixon & Bell, L.L.P.
With the assistance of Joshua Mooney of Ross, Dixon & Bell, L.L.P.
Introduction
If one theme stood out in the October 2000 Supreme Court Term, it was the Court’s exasperation with lower courts, state and federal, who continued to ignore the Court’s precedents. In several decisions from this term, the Court invalidated novel efforts to distinguish, explain, weasel out of, and disrespect inconvenient Supreme Court cases.
In two capital cases, Penry v. Johnson and Shafer v. South Carolina, the Court overturned death sentences because juries were not properly instructed regarding mitigating evidence or the possibility of parole. In each case, the Court felt that the State had ignored clear precedent on how to convey the instructions. Penry involved a defendant whose previous death conviction for the same murder had been overturned by the Court 12 years before on virtually identical grounds — that the jury had not been allowed through instructions to adequately give effect to the mitigating evidence presented to it. In Shafer, South Carolina only waited four years to ignore the Court’s 1997 ruling that juries deliberating future dangerousness must be informed, upon request, whether life sentences carry any possibility of parole.
In Ohio v. Reiner, the Court reminded Ohio that the Fifth Amendment Privilege Against Self Incrimination has applied to innocent as well as guilty people for about 50 years. In Arkansas v. Sullivan, the Court reiterated that pretextual traffic arrests (and subsequent searches) are perfectly proper under the Fourth Amendment. Arkansas had failed to get the message and its high court majority actually believed that it could give the Fourth Amendment a more expansive reading than the Supreme Court did. In Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, the Court upheld the custodial arrest of a mother who violated a misdemeanor seatbelt law. Sullivan and Atwater together go far towards wiping out any real Fourth Amendment protection for American motorists, since traffic violations are easy enough to trump-up.
Vehicular drug roadblocks were invalidated as were thermal imagers aimed without probable cause at homes. The police were allowed to briefly detain citizens and follow them into their homes while waiting for a warrant to be obtained. South Carolina, always on the cutting edge of individual liberty, was told to stop secretly administering drug tests to pregnant mothers and turning the results over to the police. Justice Kennedy sought to explain, incomprehensibly, how the “objectively reasonable” test differs for purposes of excessive force and qualified immunity analyses.
In the habeas corpus field, the Court fairly construed recent stringent congressional enactments, except in the area of alien detention where a majority misread clear statutory language in order to preserve judicial review. The Court also ruled that removable, hence illegal, aliens cannot be indefinitely detained by the Attorney General, despite what appears to be clear statutory authority for his doing so.
Sick pot smokers suffered an unsurprising setback when the Court ruled that California’s medical necessity defense is not a defense at all to federal charges of drug manufacturing and distribution. In reaching its decision, the Court had to overturn a Ninth Circuit opinion that appeared on its face to have been written by a very ill judge. The Court reluctantly informed Pennsylvania that it could not convict a man of operating a waste site without a permit when the State’s own evidence established that the permit was valid. This is called convicting someone of a crime without proving all of the elements of the offense. Pennsylvania had never received the news that this has been unconstitutional for about 40 years. The Court also ruled that judges can amend common law crimes and apply them retroactively to criminal defendants, even though legislatures are prohibited from doing the very same thing under the Ex Post Facto and Due Process Clauses. (It sure is nice to be the only branch that gets to interpret the Constitution.)
Several terms ago the Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel was offense-specific. Lower state and federal courts had “clarified” this concept by creating an exception for “factually-related” crimes. The Court calmly put the kibosh on this nonsense, noting that it had “meant what it said.” Unfortunately, this particular decision has the potential to eviscerate the pre-trial Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel since so many perpetrators violate more than one statute in the course of a criminal transaction
The Court reaffirmed the startling proposition, in light of a contrary holding from the Seventh Circuit, that extra jail time caused by an attorney’s incompetence is actually prejudicial. Moreover, in ruling that the federal mail fraud statute does not apply to people who fraudulently obtain video poker licenses from Louisiana, the Court preserved one of that State’s favorite pastimes. Prison-related lawsuits were rather harshly scrutinized and sexual predators remained under lock and key, pursuant to the State of Washington’s “civil confinement” statute, despite the best efforts of the Ninth Circuit to distinguish an earlier on-point Supreme Court opinion that had validated an almost identical Kansas statute modeled on the Washington plan.
Herewith is the third annual summary of Criminal Law and Procedure Decisions of the Supreme Court. Footnotes and internal quotations have generally been omitted. Joshua Mooney of Ross, Dixon & Bell has substantially assisted me in this year’s project. Summer associate Teah Lupton provided support for the habeas corpus summaries. As always, the opinions expressed in the Comments sections, and in this Introduction, are entirely my own and most assuredly do not represent the views of FindLaw or Ross, Dixon & Bell.
Summaries
Aliens
- Zadvydas v. Davis
Indefinite Confinement Under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6)Controlled Substances Act
- United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative
Medical Necessity Defense for MarijuanaDeath Penalty
- Penry v. Johnson
Jury Instructions on Mitigation- Shafer v. South Carolina
Jury Instructions on Possibility of ParoleDue Process
- Fiore v. White
Failure to Prove Element of the Offense- Rogers v. Tennessee
Retroactive Judicial Construction of Common Law CrimeFifth Amendment
- Ohio v. Reiner
Privilege Against Self IncriminationFourth Amendment
- Saucier v. Katz
Excessive Force and Qualifed Immunity- Arkansas v. Sullivan
Pretextual Arrests- Illinois v. McArthur
Refusal To Allow Re-Entry Into Home- Indianapolis v. Edmond
Vehicular Drug Roadblock
- Ferguson v. Charleston
Warrantless Drug Testing- Atwater v. City of Lago Vista
Warrantless Misdemeanor Arrests- Kyllo v. United States
What is a Search?
Habeas Corpus
- INS v. St. Cyr
Alien Deportation Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241- Calcano-Martinez v. INS
Alien Deportation Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241- Tyler v. Cain
Definition of “Made Retroactive” Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(A)- Artuz v. Bennett
Definition Of “Properly Filed” Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(2)- Daniels v. United States
Validity of Prior Convictions Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255- Lackawanna County District Attorney v. Coss
Validity of Prior Convictions Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel
- Glover v. United States
Prejudice ProngInterstate Agrement on Detainers
- Alabama v. Bozeman
Antishuttling ProvisionMail Fraud
- Cleveland v. United States
Are Licenses Property?Prison Conditions
- Booth v. Churner
Exhaustion of Administrative RemediesPrisoners’ Rights
- Shaw v. Murphy
Legal CorrespondenceSentencing Guidelines
- Buford v. United States
Standard of Review for Related Prior ConvictionsSexual Predators
- Seling v. Young
Civil CommitmentSixth Amendment
- Texas v. Cobb
Right To Counsel
Cases by Date
2000-2001 Term
1999-2000 Term (selected cases)
Cases by Subject
Administrative Law
Bankruptcy
Constitutional Law & Civil Rights
Corporate, Business & Contracts
Criminal Law
Employment
Environmental, Real Estate & Natural Resources
Estates & Trusts
Immigration
Intellectual Property
Litigation
Regulated Industries
Tax & ERISA
Technology
Other
1999-2000 Term (selected cases)
Cases by Subject
Administrative Law
Bankruptcy
Constitutional Law & Civil Rights
Corporate, Business & Contracts
Criminal Law
Employment
Environmental, Real Estate & Natural Resources
Intellectual Property
Litigation
Regulated Industries
Tax & ERISA
Technology
U.S. Supreme Court Opinions
FindLaw - Free E-mail
MAIN
SUPREME COURT CENTER
Docket
Supreme Court cases by oral argument date. Includes links to lower court decisions and Supreme Court briefs where available.Case Index
Supreme Court cases by topic.Decisions
Supreme Court decisions during the October 1999 term.Orders
Supreme Court orders. Includes orders in pending cases, grants and denials of certiorari, attorney discipline orders and more.Briefs
Supreme Court briefs in alphabetical order by first-party case name.Court Rules
Rules of the Supreme Court.Court Filing Guides
Guides from the Office of the Clerk for petitioners filing a writ of certiorari.Court Schedule
Supreme Court calendar. Includes argument days, conference days, non-argument sessions and court holidays.
Copyright © 1999-2000 Find Law
FindLaw : Laws: Cases and Codes : Supreme Court Opinions
U.S. Supreme Court Opinions
Browsing
Citation Search
- U.S. Supreme Court Decisions: by volume , by year
Recent Decisions
2000 Decisions
1999 DecisionsParty Name Search
Full-Text Search
FindLaw's searchable database of the Supreme Court decisions since 1893 (U.S. Supreme Court Decisions: US Reports 150-, 1893-). Browsable by year and US Reports volume number and searchable by citation, case title and full text. This is a free service that will remain free.
Receive Free E-Mail Case Law Summaries of USSC Opinions
FindLaw Constitutional Law Center
Constitutional Law Message Boards
Supreme Court NewsSearch Supreme Court Cases from your own web page with a backlink graphic to your own web page.
Click here for the HTML to add this form to your web page .
US Constitution with annotations from the Congressional Research Service Library of Congress with links to cited Supreme Court CasesSupreme Court Resources including court calendar, court rules, Real Audio recordings of the Oral Arguments, Law Journal Extra! news stories, Justices' biographical information and Cornell's free e-mail update service.
Recent U.S. Supreme Court Decisions and News from the Supreme Court, including: search engine for Supreme Court Cases, in FindLaw
Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sandra Day O'Connor - Supreme Court justices
Lawyer's Lounge, Supreme Court Building, Washington, D.C.Annie Liebowitz, photographer, NY Times
HOME | ABOUT THE COURT | DOCKET | CALENDAR/SCHEDULES | BAR ADMISSIONS | COURT RULES
CASE HANDLING GUIDES | OPINIONS | ORDERS | VISITING THE COURT | PUBLIC INFORMATION | RELATED WEBSITESLast Updated: May 15, 2000
Page Name: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/99oplist.html
© 1999 - 2007 Mark I. Levy, MD, DFAPA
.jpg)
