supreme court update g. alan dubois patrick l. bryant
TRANSCRIPT
SUPREME COURT UPDATE
G. Alan DuBois
Patrick L. Bryant
SUPREME COURT UPDATE
Fourth Amendment
Fifth Amendment
Sixth Amendment
Sentencing
FOURTH AMENDMENT
Florida v. Harris
Florida v. Harris
Issue: Is an alert by a trained, certified narcotics dog by itself sufficient to establish probable cause?
Florida v. HarrisHolding: YES – in a dog of an opinion!
Field results “have relatively limited import”
Dog doesn’t even have to be “certified”
Trusts police to design accurate/effective training
Florida v. HarrisThrow us a bone?
Defendant can challenge adequacy of training
Field results “may sometimes be relevant” Can challenge the alert itself Probably requires discovery/expert
Florida v. Jardines
Florida v. Jardines
Issue: Is a dog sniff at the front door of a suspected grow house a Fourth Amendment search requiring probable cause?
Holding: ??? (Argued October 31)
Misc. Fourth Amendment cases Bailey v. United States: The rule from Michigan v.
Summers that police can seize occupants during execution of a search is limited to occupants in the immediate vicinity. (Good language on exceptions to warrant requirement.)
Missouri v. McNeely: Is the dissipation of alcohol in the blood, by itself, an exigent circumstance permitting a warrantless blood draw?
Maryland v. King: Does the Fourth Amendment permit the collection and analysis of DNA taken from arrestees?
FIFTH AMENDMENT
Salinas v. Texas
Salinas v. TexasIssue: Whether, and under what circumstances, does the Fifth Amendment protect a defendant’s refusal to answer law enforcement questions before he has been arrested or read his Miranda rights?
Or, does the Fifth Amendment permit prosecutors to comment on post-arrest, pre-Miranda silence?
Holding: ??? (to be argued April 17)
Misc. Fifth Amendment cases Blueford v. Arkansas: Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar retrial on greater offenses when the jury says it is hung on lesser-included, if the verdict is not yet final.
Evans v. Michigan: Double Jeopardy Clause does bar retrial if judge grants motion for acquittal because prosecutor failed to prove an “element,” even if that factor is not really an element. An erroneous acquittal is still an acquittal!
SIXTH AMENDMENT
Missouri v. Frye/Lafler v. Cooper
Missouri v. Frye/Lafler v. Cooper
Issues: Does the right to effective assistance of counsel apply to the plea bargaining process?
Is there prejudice if the defendant accepts a subsequent, less‑favorable plea? (Frye)
Is there prejudice if the defendant is later convicted after a fair trial? (Lafler)
Missouri v. Frye/Lafler v. Cooper
Holding: Counsel has a duty to communicate plea offer to the defendant (Frye), and to provide accurate advice about it (Lafler).
But: How to show prejudice?
What is the remedy?
Missouri v. Frye/Lafler v. Cooper
Prejudice: Reasonable probability that defendant would have accepted the plea, AND a reasonable probability that the plea would have been entered.
Remedy: Up to court's discretion ‑‑ sentence from plea, sentence after trial, or "something in between." Can order govt to re‑offer plea.
Missouri v. Frye/Lafler v. Cooper
Burt v. Titlow (cert granted Feb. 25) -- (1) is defendant's testimony he would have accepted plea enough to show reasonable probability? (2) if so, must court resentence defendant in a way that remedies the violation?
SENTENCING
Setser v. United States
Setser v. United States
Issue: Can a district court order a federal sentence to run consecutively to a state sentence that has yet to be imposed?
Setser v. United States
Holding: Yes, even though 18 U.S.C. 3584 does not mention this.
Peugh v. United States
Peugh v. United States
Issue: Does the Ex Post Facto Clause require the court to use the Guidelines in effect at the time of the offense, if the current Guidelines create a "substantial risk" of a higher sentence?
Holding: ??? (argued Feb. 26)
Descamps v. United States
Descamps v. United States
Issue: Under ACCA, can a court use the "modified categorical approach" when a state burglary offense is broader than generic burglary?
Holding: ??? (argued Jan. 7)
Alleyne v. United States
Alleyne v. United States
Issue: Do facts establishing mandatory minimums have to be charged in the indictment and proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt?
Holding: ??? (argued Jan. 14)
Alleyne v. United StatesWhat's next?
• Retroactivity?
• Prior convictions (Almendarez‑Torres)
• Acquitted conduct (Watts)
• Stat max? (fixed terms vs. implied life max)
Alleyne v. United States
Lessons:
• Preserve, preserve, preserve!
• Help is available!
RESOURCES• Paul Rashkind’s outline
http://www.rashkind.com/supct.pdf
• SCOTUSBlog
http://www.scotusblog.com/
• Alan/DSCRAP
http://www.fd.org/
