Today, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in four criminal cases:
In Fischer v. United States, No. 23-5572, the Justices will decide if the D.C. Circuit erred in construing 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2) (“Witness, Victim, or Informant Tampering"), which prohibits obstruction of congressional inquiries and investigations, to include acts unrelated to investigations and evidence. The Court’s decision could affect hundreds of prosecutions arising from conduct at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, including charges against former President Donald Trump for conspiring to overthrow the results of the 2020 election (assuming the Court decides he is not immune from prosecution).
The Court also agreed to review the Ninth Circuit’s grant of habeas relief in the death penalty case Thornell v. Jones, No. 22-982. As framed by Arizona, the Court will decide did the Ninth Circuit violate the Supreme Court's precedents by employing a flawed methodology for assessing Strickland prejudice when it disregarded the district court's factual and credibility findings and excluded evidence in aggravation and the State's rebuttal when it reversed the district court and granted habeas relief?
In Chiaverini v. City of Napoleon, No. 23-50, the Court will decide if Fourth Amendment malicious prosecution claims are governed by the charge-specific rule, as the Second, Third, and Eleventh circuits hold, or by the "any-crime" rule, as the Sixth Circuit holds. To make out a Fourth Amendment malicious prosecution claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must show that legal process was instituted without probable cause. Thompson v. Clark, 142 S. Ct. 1332, 1338 (2022). Under the charge-specific rule, a malicious prosecution claim can proceed as to a baseless criminal charge, even if other charges brought alongside the baseless charge are supported by probable cause. Under the "any-crime" rule, probable cause for even one charge defeats a plaintiff's malicious prosecution claims as to every other charge, including those lacking probable cause.
In Snyder v. United States, 23-108, the justices will interpret federal bribery laws. 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(l)(B) makes it a federal crime for a state or local official to "corruptly solicit[,] demand[,] ... or accept[] ... anything of value from any person, intending to be influenced or rewarded in connection with any" government business "involving any thing of value of $5,000 or more." The question presented, on which the circuits are divided, is: whether section § 666 criminalizes gratuities, i.e., payments in recognition of actions the official has already taken or committed to take, without any quid pro quo agreement to take those actions. https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/23-108.html