Appeals

Man in Puerto Rico charged with machine-gun-possession pleads guilty with an advisory prison range of 24 to 30 months. At sentencing, man request 24 months. Prosecutor requests 30 months. District court: Convinced that neither party's suggested sentence "reflects the seriousness of the offense, promotes respect for the law, protects the public from further crimes" imposed a prison sentence of 48 months — 18 months more than the top of the recommended sentencing range. First Circuit: Not so.

Today, in Shinn v. Martinez, No. 20-1009 (May 23, 2022), a divided Supreme Court held, under §2254(e)(2), a federal habeas court may not conduct an evidentiary hearing or otherwise consider evidence beyond the state-court record based on the ineffective assistance of state post-conviction counsel.  Thomas, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C.J., and Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanagh, and Barrett, JJ., joined. Sotomayor, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Breyer and Kagan, JJ., joined.

New York man covicted of armed robbery is sentenced to 100 months' imprisonment plus five years of supervised release, during which he cannot commit a new crime. Man commits more crimes, including allegedly assaulting his ex-girlfriend. But when she refuses to testify at his supervised release revocation hearing, the court relies on her signed statemet to police and revokes his supervised release. Man: that doesn't seem right. District court: it's right, and here's a 28-month sentence. Second Circuit (over a dissent): Seems right.

California man charged in gun case was facing trial in September 2020. The trial court adopted COVID restrictions and precluded the public from entering the courtroom and giving access to the proceedings only by streaming audio. Man: objection! This violates my Sixth Amendment right to a public trial because ‘the ability to have the courtroom open is not simply to hear the witnesses but to see the witnesses, to see the jury, to see the defendant, to see the attorneys, see the court,’ but I'll settle for video as an adequate substitute for in-person. Trial court: no, audio only.

Midland, Texas, prosecutor's office investigator told jury a reliable source told him that someone named Cali was selling drugs from a hotel and other law enforcement agents told him Cali was the defendant. Defendant: hearsay! Prosecutor: testimony is admissible to give jury context. Fifth Circuit: Not admissible. Introducing testimonial hearsay of non-testifying witnesses violates the Confrontation Clause. And since we've had to say this a lot as of late, "we are concerned that the government has repeatedly failed to take the lesson."

After being struck in the head with a metal handlebar, called the n-word, and having his life threatened by four white men in Lewiston, Me., Black man retrieves a gun from his home nearby, returns to the scene, and fires a shot into a dirt pile. At trial, the prosecutor peremptorily struck the only person of color from the jury pool. Man: this is discrimination and violates Batson v. Kentucky. Trial court: "I can't make any findings." Man is convicted and sentenced to three years in prison.

Utah Highway Patrol officer pulls over a car with Kansas plates for speeding and changing lanes without properly signaling. After talking with the driver, trooper returns to his patrol car and calls for a local sheriff's K-9 unit. The K-9 eventually shows up and alerts on the car, and the resulting search turns up a gun, fentanyl pills, and a kilo of cocaine. Man: the trooper had no reasonable suspicion to prolong the stop to facilitate the dig sniff? Trial court: Yes, he did. Tenth Circuit: No, he didn't.

What standard of review should federal habeas courts use when assessing state courts' prior determinations that constitutional trial errors were harmless?

The U.S. Supreme Court struggled during oral arguments Wednesday over whether its landmark Miranda ruling allows criminal suspects to file civil suits against police officers who don't warn them of their rights against self-incrimination.

West Virginia used-car dealers file motion to suppress evidence obtained during search, and four years later a court agrees that the state trooper who applied for the warrant omitted important facts and made misleading statements and dismisses the criminal charges (failing to disclose to customers that their cars had been totaled before being refurbished) with prejudice. Fourth Circuit: But it's too late for them to sue the trooper over the unconstitutional search. They should have sued while the criminal case was still pending.