For nearly 90 minutes on Tuesday, the high court grappled with the question of whether good faith is a defense for doctors criminally prosecuted for unlawful distribution of controlled substances (view coverage).
Sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenges to a criminal conviction are notoriously difficult to win. California man and alleged gang member charged with drug conspiracy. Man: I left gang and bought drugs for my use. Contacts with gang is for friendship purpose. Jury: we believe defense and prosecution. Acquits on some distribution charges; convicts on drug distribution conspiracy and gun charges. Man appeals.
The Supreme Court on Thursday in Hemphill v. New York sided with a criminal defendant who said his Sixth Amendment rights were violated at a trial during which he was convicted of murder.
The issue is whether Hemphill “opened the door” at his trial to the use of evidence that would normally be barred by the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause (view previous coverage).
The Supreme Court will hear argument on Tuesday in an important case on the rights of criminal defendants under the Sixth Amendment’s confrontation clause. Specifically, the court will determine in Hemphill v.
The Supreme Court granted cert in Hemphill v. New York on Monday. Rules of evidence protect criminal defendants from the introduction of certain prejudicial types of evidence in the prosecution’s case-in-chief, such as evidence of a defendant’s violent character.
Timothy Smith is an avid fisherman and software engineer who lives in Mobile, Alabama near the Gulf Coast. He discovered that a private company named Strikezones, headquartered in the Northern District of Florida, was selling geographic coordinates of artificial reefs that individuals create to attract fish. Irritated that Strikezones was profiting from the work of private reef builders, Smith used some software to secretly obtain tranches of coordinates from Strikezone’s website and made them available to requesters on social media.
Harahan, La. police captain is written up for numerous infractions including false statements and conduct unbecoming, and the district attorney places the captain on the "Giglio list" of liars and bad cops, an averred death knell for his career. Cop: I need to appeal so I can get off the Giglio list but the DA gives me no process, violating my Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. District court: Agreed. The cop's claim can proceed because cop has an interest in working his occupation and being on the list jeopardizes that. Fifth Circuit: Working an occupation? How is that a liberty?
Detroit man spends more than 20 years in prison for a 12-year-old girl's murder—a crime he did not commit. Indeed, another man's fingerprints are on the murder weapon, and the defendant's confession (which got the cause of death wrong) followed a detective's telling him he could go home after signing it. Once he's released, he sues the city and involved officials who, as you might expect, assert qualified immunity.
Man is convicted of sex crimes in Indian country against an Indian victim under statute that applies if either the perpetrator or victim is an Indian—but does not apply if both are. Man: The feds didn't show I am not an Indian. Feds: That's your fault for not objecting to the jury instructions. Tenth Circuit: That's your fault for not proving an essential element of the crime. Convictions reversed.
The case is United States v. Simpkins, No. 22-7048 (10th Cir. Jan. 24, 2024).
Is it okay for a criminal-defense counsel to tell his (Black) client that if he goes to trial, the jury "would be culled of any minorities" and he'd be tried before an all-white jury? Tenth Circuit: No, it is definitely not okay. And given that misrepresentation about the right to a fair and impartial trial, the client's resulting guilty plea can't be said to have been knowing and voluntary. He gets to withdraw his guilty plea.