Search : U.S. Supreme Court : Criminal Law & Procedure : From 10/01/06 To 07/01/07
Number of summaries found: 29
Search For More Summaries
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Constitutional Law, Criminal Law & Procedure, Habeas Corpus, Health Law, Sentencing |
| Title: | Panetti v. Quarterman |
| Date: | 06/28/07 |
| Case Number: | 06-6407 |
| Summary: | Denial of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus brought by a prisoner convicted and sentenced to death in a Texas state court is reversed where: 1) the Supreme Court has statutory authority to adjudicate the claims raised in the habeas application; 2) a state court failed to provide the procedures to which petitioner was entitled under the Constitution; and 3) a federal appellate court employed an improperly restrictive test when it considered petitioner's claim of incompetency on the merits. |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Criminal Law & Procedure, Sentencing |
| Title: | Rita v. US |
| Date: | 06/21/07 |
| Case Number: | 06-5754 |
| Summary: | A court of appeals may apply a presumption of reasonableness to a district court sentence within the United States Sentencing Guidelines. |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Criminal Law & Procedure, Evidence |
| Title: | Brendlin v. California |
| Date: | 06/18/07 |
| Case Number: | 06-8120 |
| Summary: | When police make a traffic stop, a passenger in the car, like the driver, is seized for Fourth Amendment purposes and thus may challenge the stop's constitutionality. |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Civil Procedure, Criminal Law & Procedure, Habeas Corpus |
| Title: | Bowles v. Russell |
| Date: | 06/14/07 |
| Case Number: | 06-5306 |
| Summary: | The timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement, and case law precedent setting forth the "unique circumstances" doctrine is overruled to the extent the cases purported to authorize an exception to a jurisdictional rule. In a habeas case in which a district court purported to extend petitioner's time for filing an appeal beyond the period allowed by statute, dismissal of petitioner's appeal for lack of jurisdiction is affirmed where petitioner's untimely notice, even though filed in reliance upon the district court's order, deprived the circuit court of jurisdiction. |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Criminal Law & Procedure, Evidence, Habeas Corpus |
| Title: | Fry v. Pliler |
| Date: | 06/11/07 |
| Case Number: | 06-5247 |
| Summary: | In 28 U.S.C. section 2254 proceedings, a federal court must assess the prejudicial impact of constitutional error in a state-court criminal trial under Brecht's "substantial and injurious effect" standard, whether or not the state appellate court recognized the error and reviewed it for harmlessness under the "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt" standard set forth in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 24. |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Criminal Law & Procedure, Habeas Corpus |
| Title: | Uttecht v. Brown |
| Date: | 06/04/07 |
| Case Number: | 06-413 |
| Summary: | Grant of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus setting aside a capital sentence, pursuant to a claim that the trial court had violated petitioner's constitutional rights by excusing a potential juror for cause, is reversed where the court of appeals neglected to accord the proper deference required of courts reviewing claims of Witherspoon-Witt error, and on the record it was error to find that a juror was not substantially impaired in the performance of their duties. |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Criminal Law & Procedure, Per Curiam |
| Title: | Claiborne v. US |
| Date: | 06/04/07 |
| Case Number: | 06-5618 |
| Summary: | As the petitioner in the case died in on May 30, 2007, the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit is vacated as moot. |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Civil Procedure, Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law & Procedure, Health Law, Per Curiam |
| Title: | Erickson v. Pardus |
| Date: | 06/04/07 |
| Case Number: | 06-7317 |
| Summary: | In a prisoner's 42 U.S.C. section 1983 suit alleging his constitutional protections against cruel and unusual punishment were violated by prison officials' termination of a treatment program for his liver condition that they had previously commenced, the Supreme Court grants review on his petition for certiorari and vacates dismissal of the action where the court of appeals' holding that petitioner's allegations were "conclusory" departed in a stark a manner from the pleading standard mandated by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Criminal Law & Procedure, Habeas Corpus, Per Curiam, Sentencing |
| Title: | Roper v. Weaver |
| Date: | 05/21/07 |
| Case Number: | 06-313 |
| Summary: | The writ of certiorari in a criminal matter, which raised an issue regarding whether a court of appeals properly applied the AEDPA's stringent standard of review in setting aside a capital sentence, is dismissed as improvidently granted, as the Court found it necessary to prevent three identically-situated litigants from being treated in a needlessly disparate manner, simply because the district court in this matter erroneously dismissed respondent's pre-AEDPA petition. |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law & Procedure, Per Curiam |
| Title: | Los Angeles County v. Rettele |
| Date: | 05/21/07 |
| Case Number: | 06-605 |
| Summary: | In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 suit brought by residents arising from a police search and detention under circumstances in which police obtained a valid warrant to search a house, but were unaware that the suspects being sought had previously moved out, a court of appeals' ruling against petitioners-officers is reversed where respondents' constitutional rights were not violated when petitioners ordered Caucasian respondents out of bed while they were naked, despite the fact that the suspects being sought were of a different race. The orders by the police to the occupants, in the context of the lawful search in this case, were permissible, and perhaps necessary, to protect the safety of the deputies and the residents' detention was not unreasonable either. |