![\"U.S.](\"https:\/\/sentencing.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/12\/supreme_court_1545118110-300x200.jpg\")
U.S. Supreme Court Case Roundup<\/p><\/div>\n
These days, there are about 7,000 to 8,000 cases filed in the Supreme Court each term. That is a huge increase from the approximately 1,200 cases filed in the Court during the 1950-51 Supreme Court term.<\/p>\n
Of those 7,000 to 8,000 cases, the Court only agrees to have full briefings and oral arguments in about 80 of the cases. So, there is only about a 1% chance that a case filed in the Court will be heard with a full briefing and oral argument.<\/p>\n
That is not something that should deter litigants, however. The Supreme Court is always looking to hear cases that are of national importance or deal with new, novel interpretations of the law. Therefore, if you have a case that has important implications under the Constitution or other federal law, there is a greater chance that the Court will want to hear that particular case.<\/p>\n
The U.S. Supreme Court\u2019s Criminal Case Docket \u2013 2018-2019 Term<\/h2>\n
This year\u2019s term is so far shaping up to have some very intriguing criminal issues coming before the Court. As you can see, there are a few Eighth Amendment questions, particularly involving capital punishment; there are two cases about how state crimes work alongside a federal law called the Armed Career Criminal Act; and there is a direct challenge to a long-held exception to the Double Jeopardy Clause.<\/p>\n
As you know, the Court has been hearing cases since the term began on October 1, and it is still reviewing new cases as they come in. Therefore, this list is a current snapshot of the criminal cases currently on the calendar and scheduled to be heard (or were recently heard) before the Court. We\u2019ll provide updates in our next Supreme Court Roundup.<\/p>\n
Bucklew v. Precythe<\/em><\/strong><\/a><\/p>\nHearing Granted: April 30, 2018 Can an inmate challenge Missouri\u2019s method of administering the death penalty?<\/p>\n Russell Bucklew claims that he has a medical condition that would make death by lethal injection result in severe pain and needless suffering in violation of the Eighth Amendment\u2019s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. The Court is asked to decide whether the Eighth Amendment requires that an inmate prove an adequate alternative method of execution, and what evidence is required to determine if the alternative method reduces the risk of severe pain. The case also involves a question as to whether an inmate can challenge the qualifications of the officials who actually carry out the execution.<\/p>\n Flowers v. Mississippi<\/em><\/strong><\/a><\/p>\nGranted: November 2, 2018 Did the Mississippi Supreme Court properly apply Batson v. Kentucky<\/em>, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), the case that makes it illegal to strike trial jurors based on race?<\/p>\n The Supreme Court case of Batson v. Kentucky prohibits a prosecutor from striking criminal jurors off a jury panel based on race. In this case, a criminal defendant was ultimately convicted of the murder of four individuals after multiple trials with multiple trial errors. In his last trial, the defendant argued that the jury was selected in a racially discriminatory manner because the prosecutor struck five African-American prospective jurors. The Mississippi Supreme Court found no violation. The Court will now consider whether the Mississippi Supreme Court improperly applied Batson.<\/p>\n Gamble v. United States<\/em><\/strong><\/a><\/p>\nGranted: June 28, 2018 Should the \u201cseparate sovereigns\u201d exception to the Double Jeopardy Clause<\/a> be overruled?<\/p>\n For many years the Supreme Court has upheld an exception to the Double Jeopardy Clause called the \u201cseparate sovereigns\u201d doctrine. While the Double Jeopardy Clause typically prohibits trying someone for the same offense twice, the doctrine states that a person can be tried for the same offense if separate sovereigns, such as the federal government and a state government, have jurisdiction over the crime. In this case, defendant Gamble was tried for gun possession as a felon in both state and federal court. The Court will now revisit the \u201cseparate sovereigns\u201d doctrine to determine whether it should be overruled.<\/p>\n Garza v. Idaho<\/em><\/strong><\/a><\/p>\nGranted: June 18, 2018 Does a defense attorney\u2019s decision not to appeal \u2013 because the defendant\u2019s plea waived appeal \u2013 create a presumption that the defense attorney was ineffective?<\/p>\n Defendant Garza pleaded guilty to two offenses and waived his right to appeal. Four months later, Garza filed a post-conviction relief petition alleging that his counsel was ineffective for not filing appeals. The attorney did not do so because Garza waived his right. The Idaho Supreme Court held that there was no \u201cpresumption\u201d of ineffective assistance when counsel declines to file an appeal in light of an appeal waiver. That decision runs counter to the holdings of the majority of federal courts. The Court will therefore decide whether Idaho, or the majority of federal courts, are correct.<\/p>\n Gundy v. United States<\/em><\/strong><\/a><\/p>\nGranted: March 5, 2018 Does the Sex Offender Notification and Registration Act\u2019s delegation of authority to the U.S. Attorney General to issue regulations violate the \u201cnon-delegation doctrine?\u201d<\/p>\n The Court agreed to hear only a narrow issue in this case. It will decide whether the sex offender law is unable to authorize the Attorney General to impose registration requirements on offenders who were convicted before the law was enacted. That is because federal authorities convicted an individual for failing to register though he was convicted of his offenses prior to the law being enacted.<\/p>\n Madison v. Alabama<\/em><\/strong><\/a><\/p>\nGranted: February 26, 2018 Does the Eighth Amendment prohibit the execution of an inmate whose mental disability has resulted in him not being able to remember the crime or understand the circumstances of his execution?<\/p>\n Defendant Madison has been on death row for over 30 years. He has suffered several strokes and is seriously disabled. He was found by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals to be incompetent to be executed in 2016. However, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed that finding under a particular federal law. Madison now re-appeals to the Supreme Court, asking that he be found incompetent to be executed under the Eighth Amendment.<\/p>\n Mont v. United States<\/em><\/strong><\/a><\/p>\nGranted: November 2, 2018 Should a term of supervised release for one offense be paused by imprisonment for another offense?<\/p>\n Defendant Mont was convicted of several federal crimes. Once on supervised release, he committed certain state crimes. The federal district court paused Mont\u2019s supervised release due to imprisonment for the state crimes. Mont now challenges the federal court\u2019s ability to do that before the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n Nielsen v. Preap<\/em><\/strong><\/a><\/p>\nGranted: March 19, 2018 If a non-citizen is not taken into immigration custody immediately after being released from jail, then is he exempt from mandatory detention under our immigration laws?<\/p>\n The Circuit Courts of Appeal seem to disagree on whether a non-citizen is subject to mandatory detention if the federal authorities do not immediately take a non-citizen into custody after he or she has completed serving a criminal sentence. The Court will decide how to resolve the disagreement.<\/p>\n Nieves v. Bartlett<\/em><\/strong><\/a><\/p>\nGranted: June 28, 2018 Does probable cause defeat a First Amendment retaliatory-arrest claim under our civil rights laws?<\/p>\n Defendant Bartlett was arrested for disorderly conduct and harassment, and he filed a civil rights lawsuit against the arresting officers for retaliatory arrest. The Supreme Court previously held that a person could not make a retaliatory prosecution claim if the charges against him were supported by probable cause. However, that rule does not necessarily extend to retaliatory arrest claims. The lower court in this case held that even if the arresting officers had probable cause, Bartlett could still claim that he suffered a retaliatory arrest. The Court will clarify if that is correct.<\/p>\n Stokeling v. United States<\/em><\/strong><\/a><\/p>\nGranted: April 2, 2018 Does a state robbery offense become a \u201cviolent felony\u201d under the Armed Career Criminal Act when the state has interpreted the offense to only require slight force as an element of the offense?<\/p>\n Defendant Stokeling pleaded guilty to federal gun possession charges. He had previous Florida robbery convictions on his record. He was subjected to enhanced sentencing under the Armed Career Criminal Act. However, Stokeling claims that his robbery convictions cannot be \u201cviolent felonies,\u201d triggering the Act, because the Florida robbery statute is interpreted as only requiring slight force to meet the \u201covercoming victim resistance\u201d element of robbery. The Court will decide whether slight force is enough to trigger the Armed Career Criminal Act.<\/p>\n Timbs v. Indiana<\/em><\/strong><\/a><\/p>\nGranted: June 18, 2018 Is the Eighth Amendment\u2019s excessive fines clause applicable to the States through incorporation of the Fourteenth Amendment?<\/p>\n Several, but not all, constitutional amendments, like the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments, apply to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, by way of so-called \u201cincorporation.\u201d In this case, the State of Indiana sought to forfeit defendant Timbs\u2019 expensive Land Rover as part of a criminal fine. The trial court found it excessive, but the Indiana Supreme Court did not. It held that the Eighth Amendment\u2019s excessive fines clause has not been clearly incorporated to the states. The Court will now decide whether the Eighth Amendment\u2019s excessive fines clause has been incorporated to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.<\/p>\n
\nCase Argued: November 6, 2018
\nCase Decided: Pending\n
\nArgued: Pending
\nDecided: Pending\n
\nArgued: December 6, 2018
\nDecided: Pending\n
\nArgued: October 30, 2018
\nDecided: Pending\n
\nArgued: October 2, 2018
\nDecided: Pending\n
\nArgued: October 2, 2018
\nDecided: Pending\n
\nArgued: Pending
\nDecided: Pending\n
\nArgued: October 10, 2018
\nDecided: Pending\n
\nArgued: November 26, 2018
\nDecided: Pending\n
\nArgued: October 9, 2018
\nDecided: Pending\n
\nArgued: November 28, 2018
\nDecided: Pending\n