SDR

November 2017 SDR-1
Tuesday, October 31st, 2017

Voice for the Defense Volume 46, No. 9 Edition

Editor: Michael Mowla

From Editor Michael Mowla:

        1. I summarize each opinion in a manner that allows readers to generally use this SDR instead of reading every opinion.

        2. If you determine that a summarized opinion is relevant to one of your cases, I urge you to read the opinion and not rely solely upon these summaries.

October 2017 SDR-1
Saturday, September 30th, 2017

Voice for the Defense Volume 46, No. 8 Edition

Editor: Michael Mowla

From editor Michael Mowla:

        1. I summarize each opinion in a manner that allows readers to generally use this SDR instead of reading every opinion.

        2. If you determine that a summarized opinion is relevant to one of your cases, I urge you to read the opinion and not rely solely upon these summaries.

September 2017 SDR
Friday, September 1st, 2017

Voice for the Defense Volume 46, No. 7 Edition

Editor: Michael Mowla

From editor Michael Mowla:

        1. I summarize each opinion in a manner that allows readers to generally use this SDR instead of reading every opinion.

        2. If you determine that a summarized opinion is relevant to one of your cases, I urge you to read the opinion and not rely solely upon these summaries.

SDR July2017-1
Tuesday, July 25th, 2017

Voice for the Defense Volume 46, No. 6 Edition

Editor: Michael Mowla

From editor Michael Mowla:

1. I summarize each opinion in a manner that allows readers to generally use this SDR instead of reading every opinion.

2. If you determine that a summarized opinion is relevant to one of your cases, I urge you to read the opinion and not rely solely upon these summaries.

SDR June2017-1
Tuesday, June 6th, 2017

Voice for the Defense Volume 46, No. 5 Edition

Editor: Michael Mowla

From editor Michael Mowla

1.  The online SDR, which is regularly emailed to all current TCDLA members, is summarized in a man­ner that allows readers to generally use the SDR instead of reading every opinion. It includes more than just the relevant holding(s).

2. These summaries are not a substitute for reading the whole case.

Tuesday, May 9th, 2017

Voice for the Defense Volume 46, No. 4 Edition

Editor: Michael Mowla

From editor Michael Mowla

1. I summarize each opinion in a manner that allows readers to generally use this SDR instead of reading every opinion.

2. Some opinions are 20 or more pages, so I focus on the most relevant parts to write summaries of one to four pages.

3. If you determine that a summarized opinion is relevant to one of your cases, I urge you to read the opinion and not rely solely upon these summaries.

Thursday, March 30th, 2017

Voice for the Defense Volume 46, No. 3 Edition

Editor: Michael Mowla

From author Michael Mowla:

1. I summarize each opinion in a manner that allows readers to generally use this SDR instead of reading every opinion.

2. The case-opinions range from 5 to over 100 pages, so I focus on the most relevant parts to write summaries of one to four pages.

3. If you determine that a summarized opinion is relevant to one of your cases, I urge you to read the opinion and not rely solely upon these summaries.

Thursday, March 9th, 2017

Voice for the Defense Volume 46, No. 2 Edition

Editor: Michael Mowla

From author Michael Mowla:

1. I summarize each case in a manner that allows readers to generally use this SDR instead of reading every case. However, if you determine that a summarized case may be relevant to one of your cases, I urge you to read the case and not rely solely upon these summaries.

2. Facts, further analysis and depth is provided in the electronic version of the SDR.

Thursday, January 26th, 2017

Voice for the Defense Volume 46, No. 1 Edition

Editors: Tim Crooks, Kathleen Nacozy

Supreme Court

The Sixth Amendment speedy trial guarantee did not apply to the 14-month delay between D’s conviction and sentencing. Betterman v. Montana, 136 S. Ct. 1609 (2016).

Tuesday, December 6th, 2016

Voice for the Defense Volume 45, No. 10 Edition

Editors: Tim Crooks, Kathleen Nacozy

Saturday, November 5th, 2016

Voice for the Defense Volume 45, No. 9 Edition

Editors: Tim Crooks, Kathleen Nacozy

Supreme Court

Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), which held that the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act was void for vagueness, was a substantive decision that applied retroactively to D’s case. Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (2016).

Friday, October 7th, 2016

Voice for the Defense Volume 45, No. 8 Edition

Editors: Tim Crooks, Kathleen Nacozy

Supreme Court

SORNA did not require D, a registered sex offender, to update his registration in Kansas once he left the state and moved to the Philippines. Nichols v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1113 (2016).

Friday, September 2nd, 2016

Voice for the Defense Volume 45, No. 7 Edition

Editors: Tim Crooks, Kathleen Nacozy

Friday, July 22nd, 2016

Voice for the Defense Volume 45, No. 6 Edition

Editors: Tim Crooks, Kathleen Nacozy

Saturday, June 11th, 2016

Voice for the Defense Volume 45, No. 5 Edition

Editors: Tim Crooks, Kathleen Nacozy

Thursday, May 5th, 2016

Voice for the Defense Volume 45, No. 4 Edition

Editors: Tim Crooks, Kathleen Nacozy

Supreme Court

Supreme Court capital-sentencing case law did not require a court to instruct the jury that mitigating circumstances need not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt; nor was such an instruction constitutionally necessary in these cases to avoid confusion. Kansas v. Carr, 136 S. Ct. 633 (2016).

Saturday, April 9th, 2016

Voice for the Defense Volume 45, No. 3 Edition

Editors: Tim Crooks, Kathleen Nacozy

Supreme Court

Florida’s death-sentencing scheme, which did not require a jury to determine whether a capital defendant was mentally retarded or unanimously sentence a defendant to death, violated the Sixth Amendment’s jury trial guarantee. Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (2016).

Saturday, March 12th, 2016

Voice for the Defense Volume 45, No. 2 Edition

Editors: Tim Crooks, Kathleen Nacozy

Supreme Court

The judge in D’s murder trial did not violate U.S. Const. amend. VI by dismissing a juror who provided equivocal answers when asked if he could impose the death penalty if D was convicted. White v. Wheeler, 136 S. Ct. 456 (2015).

Tuesday, February 16th, 2016

Voice for the Defense Volume 45, No. 1 Edition

Editors: Tim Crooks, Kathleen Nacozy

Supreme Court

Petitioners failed to establish a likelihood of success on their claim that using midazolam for execution violates U.S. Const. amend. VIII. Glossip v. Gross, 135 S. Ct. 2726 (2015).

Wednesday, January 6th, 2016

Voice for the Defense Volume 44, No. 10 Edition

Editors: Tim Crooks, Kathleen Nacozy

Syndicate content