Click here to view the warden's merits brief.
Click here to view Sarausad’s merits brief.
Click here to view the warden’s reply brief.
Click here to view the amicus brief of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers submitted in support of Sarausad.
Argument was heard in the case on October 15, 2008.
The Supreme Court has granted certiorari in the following cases which involve constitutional issues of interest to capital litigators:
Kansas v. Ventris, 07-1356 (cert. granted October 1, 2008)
(case below: 176 P.3d 920 (Kan.))
Questions presented:
Whether a criminal defendant’s "voluntary statement obtained in the absence of a
knowing and voluntary waiver of the [Sixth Amendment] right to counsel,"
Michigan v. Harvey, 494 U.S. 344, 354 (1990), is admissible for impeachment
purposes--a question the Court expressly left open in Harvey and which has
resulted in a deep and enduring spIit of authority in the Circuits and state courts of
last resort?
Click here to view Kansas’ certiorari petition.
Click here to view the amicus brief filed by the states of Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Virginia in support of Kansas.
Click here to view the amicus brief filed by the United States in support of Kansas. Argument will be heard on January 21, 2009.
Montejo v. Louisiana, 07-1529 (cert. granted October 1, 2008)
(case below: 974 So. 2d 1238 (La.))
Questions presented:
When an indigent defendant’s right to counsel has attached and counsel has been
appointed, must the defendant take additional affirmative steps to "accept" the
appointment in order to secure the protections of the Sixth Amendment and
preclude police-initiated interrogation without counsel present?
Click here to view Montejo’s certiorari petition.
Click here to view Montejo's merits brief.
Click here to view the amicus brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the Americal Civil Liberties Union, the American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana, and the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University in support of Montejo.
Click here to view the amicus brief of the Louisiana Public Defenders Association in support of Montejo. Argument will be heard on January 13, 2009.
Rivera v. Illinois, 07-9995 (cert. granted October 1, 2008)
(case below: 879 N.E.2d 876 (Ill.))
Questions presented:
Whether the erroneous denial of a criminal defendant’s peremptory challenge that
resulted in the challenged juror being seated requires automatic reversal of a
conviction because it undermines the trial structure for preserving the
constitutional right to due process and an impartial jury.
Vermont v. Brillon, 08-88 (cert. granted October 1, 2008)
(case below: No. 2005-167, 2008 WL 6814252008 (Vt.))
Questions presented:
(1) Whether continuances and delays caused solely by an indigent defendant’s
public defender can arise to a speedy trial right violation, and be charged against
the State pursuant to the test in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972), on the
theory that public defenders are paid by the state; and (2) Whether the right to
counsel, as established in Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963), should
result in broader speedy trial rights to indigent defendants than defendants who are
able to retain private counsel, such that only delays by private counsel get charged
against the defendant under the Barker v. Wingo test.
Click here to view Vermont’s certiorari petition.
Click here to view Vermont's merits brief.
Click here to view the amicus brief of The National Governors Association, Council of State Governments, National Conference of State Legislatures, National Association of Counties, International City/County Management Association, and U.S. Conference of Mayors in support of Vermont.
Click here to view the amicus brief of Utah, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming in support of Vermont.
Click here to view the amicus brief of the Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence, et. al., in support of Vermont.
Click here to view the amicus brief of the United States in support of Vermont.
Oral argument will be heard on November 10, 2008.
Arizona v. Johnson, 07-1122 (cert. granted June 23, 2008)
(case below: 170 P.3d 667 (Ariz. App.))
Questions presented:
In the context of a vehicular stop for a minor traffic infraction, may an officer conduct a pat-down search
of a passenger when the officer has an articulable basis to believe the passenger might be armed and
presently dangerous, but has no reasonable grounds to believe that the passenger is committing, or has
committed, a criminal offense?
Click here to view Arizona's certiorari petition.
Click here to view Arizona’s merits brief.
Click here to view the amicus brief by Americans for Effective Law Enforcement, Inc,, et al., in support of Arizona.
Click here to view the amicus brief for the States of Illinois, Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming in support of Arizona.
Click here to view the amicus brief of the United States in support of Arizona.
Click here to view the amicus brief of the National League of Cities, et al., in support of Arizona.
Click here to amicus brief of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation in support of Arizona. Oral argument will be heard on December 9, 2008.
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 07-591 (cert. granted March 17, 2008)
(case below: 870 N.E.2d 676 (Mass. App.))
Questions presented:
Whether a state forensic analyst’s laboratory report prepared for use in a criminal
prosecution is “testimonial” evidence subject to the demands of the Confrontation Clause
as set forth in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004).
Click here to view Melendez-Diaz's merits brief.
Click here to view the amicus brief of Law Professors in support of Melendez-Diaz.
Click here to view the amicus brief of Richard D. Friedman submitted in support of Melendez-Diaz.
Click here to view the amicus brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, et al., in support of Melendez-Diaz.
Click here to view the amicus brief of the National Innocence Network in support of Melendez-Diaz.
Click here to view Massachusetts’ merits brief.
Click here to view the amicus brief by the States of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Washington, Wyoming, and the District of Columbia in support of Massachusetts.
Click here to view the amicus brief of the United States in support of Massachusetts.
Click here to view the amicus brief of the National District Attorneys Association in support of Massachusetts.
Click here to view Melendez-Diaz's reply brief.
Argument was heard on November 10, 2008.
Oregon v. Ice, 07-901 (cert. granted March 17, 2008)
(case below: 170 P.3d 1049 (Oregon))
Questions presented:
Whether the Sixth Amendment, as construed in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), and Blakely v. Washington,
542 U.S. 296 (2004), requires that facts (other than prior convictions) necessary to imposing consecutive sentences
be found by the jury or admitted by the defendant.
Click here to view Oregon's merits brief.
Click here to view the amicus brief by the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation in support of Oregon.
Click here to view the amicus brief by Sentencing Law Scholars in support of Oregon.
Click here to view the amicus brief by Indiana, Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, and Washington in support of Oregon.
Click here to view Ice’s merits brief.
Click here to view the amicus brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in support of Ice.
Click here to view Oregon’s reply brief.
Argument was heard in the case on October 14, 2008.
Arizona v. Gant, 07-542 (cert. granted Feb. 25, 2008)
(case below: 216 Ariz. 1)
Questions presented:
Does the Fourth Amendment require law enforcement officers to demonstrate a threat to
their safety or a need to preserve evidence related to the crime of arrest in order to justify
a warrantless vehicular search incident to arrest conducted after the vehicle’s recent
occupants have been arrested and secured?
Click here to view Arizona's merits brief.
Click here to view the amicus brief of the Los Angeles County District Attorney in support of Arizona.
Click here to view the amicus brief by the Americans for Effective Law Enforcement, et al., in support of Arizona.
Click here to view the amicus brief of the National Association of Police Organizations in support of Arizona.
Click here to view the amicus brief of Florida, Alabama, Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming in support of Arizona.
Click here to view the amicus brief by the United States in support of Arizona.
Click here to view Gant’s merits brief.
Click here to view the amicus brief of the ACLU and the ACLU of Arizona in support of Gant.
Click here to view the amicus brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in support of Gant.
Click here to view the amicus brief of the National Association of Federal Defenders in support of Gant.
Click here to view Arizona’s reply brief.
Argument was heard in the case on October 7, 2008.
Herring v. United States, 07-513 (cert. granted Feb. 19. 2008)
(case below: 492 F.3d 1212 (11th Cir.))
Questions presented:
Whether the Fourth Amendment requires evidence found during a search incident to an arrest to be suppressed when
the arresting officer conducted the arrest and search in sole reliance upon facially credible but erroneous
information negligently provided by another law enforcement agent.
Click here to view Herring's merits brief.
Click here to view the amicus brief by the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers on behalf of Herring.
Click here to view the amicus brief by the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Alabama in support of Herring.
Click here to view the amicus brief by the Electronic Privacy Information Center, et al., in support of Herring.
Click here to view the United States’ merits brief.
Click here to view Herring’s reply brief.
Argument was heard in the case on October 7, 2008.