SDR

Thursday, May 21st, 2015

Voice for the Defense Volume 44, No. 4 Edition

Editors: Tim Crooks, Kathleen Nacozy

Sunday, April 12th, 2015

Voice for the Defense Volume 44, No. 3 Edition

Editors: Tim Crooks, Kathleen Nacozy

Supreme Court

The Fifth Circuit erred in holding that a federal habeas petitioner who prevailed in district court must file a separate certificate of appealability to respond to the State’s appeal. Jennings v. Stephens, 135 S. Ct. 793 (2015).

Thursday, March 5th, 2015

Voice for the Defense Volume 44, No. 2 Edition

Editors: Tim Crooks, Kathleen Nacozy

Thursday, February 12th, 2015

Voice for the Defense Volume 44, No. 1 Edition

Editors: Tim Crooks, Kathleen Nacozy

Supreme Court

Police generally may not without a warrant search information on a cell phone seized from an individual who has been arrested. Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473 (2014).

Tuesday, January 20th, 2015

Voice for the Defense Volume 43, No. 10 Edition

Editors: Tim Crooks, Kathleen Nacozy

Saturday, December 6th, 2014

Voice for the Defense Volume 43, No. 9 Edition

Editors: Tim Crooks, Kathleen Nacozy

Supreme Court

Florida’s threshold requirement that defendants show an IQ score of 70 or below to submit additional intellectual disability evidence is unconstitutional because it creates an unacceptable risk that persons with intellectual disabilities will be executed. Hall v. Florida, 134 S. Ct. 1986 (2014).

Tuesday, November 4th, 2014

Voice for the Defense Volume 43, No. 8 Edition

Editors: Tim Crooks, Kathleen Nacozy

Supreme Court

Because the Kentucky Supreme Court’s rejection of D’s Fifth Amendment claim was not objectively unreasonable, the Sixth Circuit erred in granting the writ. White v. Woodall, 134 S. Ct. 1697 (2014).

Thursday, October 2nd, 2014

Voice for the Defense Volume 43, No. 7 Edition

Editors: Tim Crooks, Kathleen Nacozy

Supreme Court

Instructions allowing the jury to convict under aiding and abetting as an alternate theory were erroneous because they failed to require that D knew in advance that one of his cohorts would be armed. Rosemond v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1240 (2014).

Tuesday, August 19th, 2014

Voice for the Defense Volume 43, No. 6 Edition

Editors: Tim Crooks, Kathleen Nacozy

Supreme Court

When challenging a pre-trial asset seizure, a defendant who has been indicted is not constitutionally entitled to contest a grand jury’s determination of probable cause to believe he committed the crimes charged. Kaley v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1090 (2014).

Thursday, July 17th, 2014

Voice for the Defense Volume 43, No. 5 Edition

Editors: Tim Crooks, Kathleen Nacozy

Supreme Court

When an occupant objecting to a search was removed from the premises, a remaining occupant could consent to the search. Fernandez v. California, 134 S. Ct. 1126 (2014).

Wednesday, June 4th, 2014

Voice for the Defense Volume 43, No. 4 Edition

Editors: Tim Crooks, Kathleen Nacozy

Supreme Court

D had a viable ineffective assistance claim because counsel failed to seek funds to replace an expert who counsel knew was inadequate when that failure was not based on a strategy but on a mistake of law. Hinton v. Alabama, 134 S. Ct. 1081 (2014).

Tuesday, April 29th, 2014

Voice for the Defense Volume 43, No. 3 Edition

Editors: Tim Crooks, Kathleen Nacozy

Supreme Court

When the use of a drug D distributed was not an independently sufficient cause of decedent’s death or serious bodily injury, D could not be liable for penalty enhancement unless such use was a but-for cause of the death or injury. Burrage v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 881 (2014).

Wednesday, March 12th, 2014

Voice for the Defense Volume 43, No. 2 Edition

Editors: Tim Crooks, Kathleen Nacozy

Supreme Court

When a defense expert who examined the defendant testifies that the defendant lacked the requisite mental state to commit a crime, the prosecution may offer evidence from a court-ordered psychological exam for the limited purpose of rebutting defendant’s evidence. Kansas v. Cheever, 134 S. Ct. 596 (2013).

Wednesday, January 29th, 2014

Voice for the Defense Volume 43, No. 1 Edition

Editors: Tim Crooks, Kathleen Nacozy

Supreme Court

The Sixth Circuit failed to apply the doubly deferential standard of review recognized by Supreme Court case law when it refused to credit the state court’s reasonable fact-finding and assumed counsel was ineffective where the record was silent. Burt v. Titlow, 134 S. Ct. 10 (2013).

Wednesday, November 20th, 2013

Voice for the Defense Volume 42, No. 9 Edition

Editors: Tim Crooks, Kathleen Nacozy

Supreme Court

The circuit court erred in holding that any degree of judicial participation in plea negotiations automatically requires vacatur of a defendant’s plea, irrespective of whether the error prejudiced defendant. United States v. Davila, 133 S. Ct. 2139 (2013).

Wednesday, November 6th, 2013

Voice for the Defense Volume 42, No. 8 Edition

Editors: Tim Crooks, Kathleen Nacozy

Supreme Court

The Fourth Amendment allows states to collect and analyze DNA from people arrested and charged with serious crimes. Maryland v. King, 133 S. Ct. 1958 (2013).

Tuesday, October 1st, 2013

Voice for the Defense Volume 42, No. 7 Edition

Editors: Tim Crooks, Kathleen Nacozy

Supreme Court

The Michigan Court of Appeals did not unreasonably apply clearly established federal law when it retroactively applied a Michigan Supreme Court decision rejecting the ­diminished-capacity defense to D charged with a murder that occurred several years prior. Metrish v. Lancaster, 133 S. Ct. 1781 (2013).

Saturday, September 7th, 2013

Voice for the Defense Volume 42, No. 6 Edition

Editors: Tim Crooks, Kathleen Nacozy, Chris Cheatham

Supreme Court

In drunk-driving investigations, the natural dissipation of alcohol in the bloodstream does not constitute an exigency in every case sufficient to justify a blood test without a warrant. Missouri v. McNeely, 133 S. Ct. 1552 (2013).

Saturday, July 20th, 2013

Voice for the Defense Volume 42, No. 5 Edition

Editors: Tim Crooks, Kathleen Nacozy, Chris Cheatham

Supreme Court

Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010), requiring defense attorneys to inform defendants of the deportation risks of guilty pleas, does not apply retroactively to convictions that became final before its announcement. Chaidez v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1103 (2013).

Thursday, June 6th, 2013

Voice for the Defense Volume 42, No. 4 Edition

Editors: Tim Crooks, Kathleen Nacozy, Chris Cheatham

Supreme Court

The categorical authority to detain incident to the execution of a search warrant should be limited to the immediate vicinity of the premises to be searched. Bailey v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 1031 (2013).

Syndicate content