U.S. Supreme Ct - Mar. 30, 2015
by: Frangieringer and Abassos • March 30, 2015 • no comments
(Created page with "<summary hidden> *IAC – Skipping Argument Irrelevant to Theory of the Case is not IAC *Search & Seizure – Satellite Monitoring is a Search </summary> '''IAC – Skipping ...") |
|||
| (2 intermediate revisions by one user not shown) | |||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
'''IAC – Skipping Argument Irrelevant to Theory of the Case is not IAC''' | '''IAC – Skipping Argument Irrelevant to Theory of the Case is not IAC''' | ||
Per Curiam: Habeas corpus relief under United States v. Cronic, stating that unconstitutional prejudice is presumed when counsel is denied at a critical stage of trial, is not available when defense counsel misses testimony that is irrelevant to defense counsel’s theory of the case. Here, defense counsel stepped out during argument about a chart chronicling the telephone conversations between three co-defendants. Because the defense theory was that the Defendant never aided and abetted the codefendants, the telephone chart was not relevant to their defense and thus the absence of the attorney was not prejudicial. | Per Curiam: Habeas corpus relief under United States v. Cronic, stating that unconstitutional prejudice is presumed when counsel is denied at a critical stage of trial, is not available when defense counsel misses testimony that is irrelevant to defense counsel’s theory of the case. Here, defense counsel stepped out during argument about a chart chronicling the telephone conversations between three co-defendants. Because the defense theory was that the Defendant never aided and abetted the codefendants, the telephone chart was not relevant to their defense and thus the absence of the attorney was not prejudicial. | ||
| − | Woods v. Donald, 575 U.S. ___ (2015). | + | [http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-618_4357.pdf Woods v. Donald], 575 U.S. ___ (2015). |
'''Search & Seizure – Satellite Monitoring is a Search''' | '''Search & Seizure – Satellite Monitoring is a Search''' | ||
Per Curiam: Being forced to wear a satellite based tracking system as a condition of being a recidivist offender is a search under the Fourth Amendment. Here, the Petitioner was ordered to submit to satellite-based monitoring as a recidivist sex-offender. Because such a program is designed to collect information about a person’s movement and involves affixing an object to the person, it is a search under United States v. Jones. The Court left open the question whether under the totality of the circumstances, such a program is reasonable. | Per Curiam: Being forced to wear a satellite based tracking system as a condition of being a recidivist offender is a search under the Fourth Amendment. Here, the Petitioner was ordered to submit to satellite-based monitoring as a recidivist sex-offender. Because such a program is designed to collect information about a person’s movement and involves affixing an object to the person, it is a search under United States v. Jones. The Court left open the question whether under the totality of the circumstances, such a program is reasonable. | ||
| − | Grady v. North Carolina, 575 U.S. ___ (2015). | + | [http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-593_o7jq.pdf Grady v. North Carolina], 575 U.S. ___ (2015). |
| + | {{wl-publish: 2015-03-30 13:00:39 -0700 | Frangieringer:Francis C. Gieringer }} | ||
| + | {{wl-publish: 2015-03-30 13:00:39 -0700 | abassos }} | ||
Latest revision as of 13:13, April 3, 2015
IAC – Skipping Argument Irrelevant to Theory of the Case is not IAC Per Curiam: Habeas corpus relief under United States v. Cronic, stating that unconstitutional prejudice is presumed when counsel is denied at a critical stage of trial, is not available when defense counsel misses testimony that is irrelevant to defense counsel’s theory of the case. Here, defense counsel stepped out during argument about a chart chronicling the telephone conversations between three co-defendants. Because the defense theory was that the Defendant never aided and abetted the codefendants, the telephone chart was not relevant to their defense and thus the absence of the attorney was not prejudicial. Woods v. Donald, 575 U.S. ___ (2015).
Search & Seizure – Satellite Monitoring is a Search Per Curiam: Being forced to wear a satellite based tracking system as a condition of being a recidivist offender is a search under the Fourth Amendment. Here, the Petitioner was ordered to submit to satellite-based monitoring as a recidivist sex-offender. Because such a program is designed to collect information about a person’s movement and involves affixing an object to the person, it is a search under United States v. Jones. The Court left open the question whether under the totality of the circumstances, such a program is reasonable. Grady v. North Carolina, 575 U.S. ___ (2015).
