Samuel Ford v. U.S: SCOTUS applies Burrage to vacate a life sentence

In its 2/24/14 list of orders, the U.S. Supreme Court summarily disposed of three criminal cases. One of them was Samuel Ford v. United States. Ford was convicted of selling heroin which caused the death of a man named Joseph Scolaro. Since Ford had a prior felony drug conviction, the mandatory minimum sentence under 841(b)(1)(C) was life in prison. Without further briefing or argument, the Supreme Court granted cert, applied the rule announced in Burrage v. U.S. and vacated the conviction.

You can read my post about the case on the Portland Press Herald site.

Burrage v. U.S.: Trafficked Drug must be But-For Cause of Death

On 1/27/14 the United States Supreme Court decided Burrage v. United States. The opinion limits the use of a Federal drug trafficking sentencing enhancement for cases where the drug user dies. The decision considers one specific statute, but it has lot to say about legal causation in general. In the end, the high court unanimously rejects the criminal causation rule used by Maine and a handful of other states.

Bond v. United States: Infidelity, Chemical War, and a RadioLab Podcast

Bond v. United States has been to the U.S. Supreme Court twice now. Round one resolved a standing issue and the latest argument dealt with the merits of the case. Bond asks whether there are limits on the way federal criminal liability can be expanded when congress enacts treaties and legislation to enforce them. The defendant was sent to federal prison for violating an international chemical weapons ban when she tried to get revenge on her husband's lover.

Kansas v. Cheever: Shrinking Heads and a Shrinking 5th Amendment

The United States Supreme Court has decided Kansas v. Cheever with Justice Sotomayor delivering the Court's unanimous opinion. The decision overturns the Kansas Supreme Court and approves the prosecution’s use of statements a defendant made in a court-ordered psychiatric evaluation to rebut the defense expert's testimony that Cheever lacked the mens rea because of intoxication. Cheever did not consent to the evaluation and never raised a traditional mental health defense. At his trial for the 2005 killing of a Sheriff, the rebuttal evidence was allowed, Cheever was convicted and sentenced to death.

Alleyne v. United States: An Element By Any Other Name...

In Alleyne v. United States, the Supreme Court dropped the biggest bombshell on criminal sentencing since Booker in 2005. The holding is relatively simple, overruling the 2002 case Harris v. United States to find that any fact which increases the minimum sentence for a crime must be proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt and cannot be found by a judge on a preponderance standard. This renders current federal sentencing procedure unconstitutional and invalidates the sentencing schemes in a large number state jurisdictions. It's an important decision that has been a long time coming, but it leaves some big questions unanswered.

Metrish v. Lancaster: Kiss Your Defense Goodbye

Wrong Burt Lancaster

The United States Supreme Court recently decided Metrish v. Lancaster. The Court reversed the Sixth Circuit and held that Lancaster was not entitled to federal habeas relief where the trial judge retroactively applied a state supreme court decision that eliminated a defense, which he had used at his first trial, at his retrial on the same charges. 

Moncrieffe v Holder: From State Felony to Federal Misdemeanor

 Matthew Kenwrick via flickr

In Moncrieffe v. Holder, the Supreme Court reversed the deportation order for a Jamaican born legal permanent resident. Adrian Moncrieffe pled guilty in a Georgia court to possession with intent to distribute 1.3 g of marijuana. Federal authorities determined that this was an "aggravated felony" and deportation was therefore mandatory. The Supreme Court's 7-2 majority held that, where there is no proof of remuneration and only a small amount of marijuana involved the crime is not an aggravated felony for immigration purposes. Moncrieffe, who was deported to Jamaica and separated from his wife and children, will likely be able to return to this country. The outcome seems right, but the law that got us here is awfully strange.

Burrage v. U.S: When Does Drug Trafficking Cause Death?

.:[ Melissa ]:. via flickr

Next term, the Supreme Court will consider when a drug dealer can be held criminally liable under a federal law punishing distribution of drugs that cause death. 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C) sets a mandatory minimum sentence of 20 years and a maximum sentence of life for drug trafficking "if death or serious bodily injury results from the use of such substance." So what does that mean?

Boyer v. Louisiana: SCOTUS Decides Not to Decide Speedy Trial Case

This sucks. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in Boyer v. Louisiana to consider if delays caused by Louisiana's underfunding of indigent defense should be attributed to the prosecution for speedy trial purposes. They heard argument in the case but today dodged the issue and dismissed the Petition for Certiorari as improvidently granted. Wait, what?

Missouri v. McNeely: Trouble for Implied Consent Laws?

In Missouri v. McNeely the United States Supreme Court held that police must normally get a warrant before taking a non-consensual blood sample to test a driver's blood alcohol level. The decision could have a major impact on the way that police obtain blood samples. It could also create problems for implied consent laws which are essential to drunk driving prosecution in all 50 states.

SCOTUS Drug Dog Cases: Horror in Harris, Joy in Jardines

The United States Supreme Court has ruled on two drug dog cases in the last few weeks: Florida v. Harris and Florida v. Jardines. The Florida Supreme Court suppressed Drug Dog searches in both cases. In Harris, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed with a particularly troubling opinion. In Jardines, they affirmed and the opinion might actually expand some fourth amendment protections.

A Criminal Sentencing Revolution? Alleyne v. United States

[Update: This case was decided in Alleyne's favor. Read my post on the opinion here].

In America, defendants facing criminal charges have the right to a jury trial. The jury hears evidence and determines the facts. The judge hears legal argument and determines the law, then instructs the jury on that law. The jury applies the law to the facts and reaches a verdict. A guilty verdict must be supported by the highest standard of proof, proof beyond a reasonable doubt. After the verdict, the judge imposes sentence, and it's here that certain facts, or sentencing factors, shape the outcome. The law in Federal court and in some states, allows these facts to be proved by a lower standard, and only to a judge. Proof of certain facts triggers mandatory minimum sentences. These facts are never part of the indictment, they are never presented to the jury yet they might double or triple the sentence. If that sounds wrong, it's because it might be. The issue is before the U.S. Supreme Court in Alleyne v. United States.