GREGORY WELCH v. UNITED STATES
Supreme Court of the United States, Kennedy, Filed April 18, 2016,
ACCA – Armed Career Criminal Act – Johnson v. United States (holding the residual clause of the ACCA void for vagueness) is a substantive rule to be applied retroactively to all cases pending on collateral review
(Dissent – Thomas – The Court should not consider the claim, applies Teague incorrectly)
Continue reading
JAIME CAETANO v. MASSACHUSETTS
Supreme Court of the United States, Per Curiam, Filed March 21, 2016,
Second amendment – Stun Guns are not disqualified from coverage under the Second Amendment for reasons related to their lack of existence at the time of the country’s founding, that they are a “modern invention”, or that they are not readily adaptable to military use.
(Concur – Alito joined by Thomas – “the pertinent Second Amendment inquiry is whether stun guns are commonly possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes today.”)
Also, see below: Justice Alito is standing up for the rights of women! Albeit where that right is limited to not having to shoot their baby-daddies down with a gun…
Continue reading
HENRY MONTGOMERY, PETITIONER v. LOUISIANA
Supreme Court of the United States, Kennedy, Filed Jan. 25, 2016,
(US Constitutional) Juvenile Law – Capital Punishment – The prohibition on mandatory life in prison without parole for juvenile homicide offenders set forth in Miller applies retroactively
MICHAEL MUSACCHIO, PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES
Supreme Court of the United States, Thomas, Filed Jan. 25, 2016,
(Federal) Statute of Limitations – Statute of Limitations defense under 18 USC 3282(a) can not be raised for the first time on appeal
KANSAS, PETITIONER v. JONATHAN D. CARR
KANSAS, PETITIONER v. REGINALD DEXTER CARR, JR
KANSAS, PETITIONER v. SIDNEY J. GLEASON
Supreme Court of the United States, Scalia, Filed Jan. 20, 2016,
8th Amendment – Mitigation – Jurors need not be instructed that mitigating circumstances “need not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.”
(Dissent – Sotomayor – because the USSC “often” declines to grant cert where “a state court has wrongly decided an important question of federal law”, this should have been denied. The dissent doesn’t disagree with the court’s actual constitutional holdings, making it an unusual dissent)
Continue reading
TIMOTHY LEE HURST, PETITIONER v. FLORIDA
Supreme Court of the United States, Sotomayor, Filed Jan. 12, 2016,
6th Amendment – Capital Punishment – “The Sixth Amendment requires a jury, not a judge, to find each fact necessary to impose a sentence of death.”
RANDY WHITE, WARDEN v. ROGER L. WHEELER
Supreme Court of the United States, Per Curiam, Filed Dec. 14, 2015,
AEDPA – Federal Habeas Review – Mere disagreement with a state court does not provide a federal Court of Appeals with the power to reverse the judgment under the AEDPA unless it is “an error well understood and comprehended in existing law beyond any possibility for fairminded disagreement”
MARYLAND, PETITIONER v. JAMES KULBICKI
Supreme Court of the United States, Per Curiam, Filed Oct. 5, 2015,
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel – Failure to “predict the demise” of a “widely accepted” scientific method was not ineffective assistance of counsel