Search : U.S. Supreme Court : Evidence : From 10/01/06 To 07/01/07
Number of summaries found: 8
Search For More Summaries
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Civil Procedure, Corp. Governance, Corporation & Enterprise Law, Evidence, Manufacturing, Securities Law |
| Title: | Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd. |
| Date: | 06/21/07 |
| Case Number: | 06-–484 |
| Summary: | In the context of private securities fraud actions and the pleading requirements of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA) intended to check abusive litigation, to qualify as "strong" within the intendment of section 21D(b)(2), an inference of scienter must be more than merely plausible or reasonable -- it must be cogent and at least as compelling as any opposing inference of nonfraudulent intent. |
| 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: | 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, Evidence, Habeas Corpus, Sentencing |
| Title: | Schriro v. Landrigan |
| Date: | 05/14/07 |
| Case Number: | 05-1575 |
| Summary: | In habeas proceedings in a death penalty case, a circuit court's decision remanding the case for an evidentiary hearing on an ineffective assistance claim is reversed where the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant respondent an evidentiary hearing. Even assuming the truth of all the facts respondent sought to prove at the evidentiary hearing at issue, he still could not be granted federal habeas relief because state courts' factual determination that respondent would not have allowed counsel to present any mitigating evidence at sentencing was not an unreasonable determination of the facts under the AEDPA, and the mitigating evidence he sought to introduce would not have changed the result. |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Criminal Law & Procedure, Evidence, Habeas Corpus, Sentencing |
| Title: | Abdul-Kabir v. Quarterman |
| Date: | 04/25/07 |
| Case Number: | 05-11284 |
| Summary: | In a capital murder case, denial of habeas relief for petitioner is reversed where there was a reasonable likelihood that a state trial court's instructions prevented jurors from giving meaningful consideration to constitutionally relevant mitigating evidence, and consequently a court of appeals' ruling resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court. |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Criminal Law & Procedure, Evidence, Habeas Corpus, Sentencing |
| Title: | Brewer v. Quarterman |
| Date: | 04/25/07 |
| Case Number: | 05-11287 |
| Summary: | In a capital murder case, denial of a habeas petition is reversed where the Texas capital sentencing statute, as interpreted by a state court, impermissibly prevented defendant's jury from giving meaningful consideration and effect to constitutionally relevant mitigating evidence. Thus, its decision denying relief under Penry was contrary to, and involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court. |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Criminal Law & Procedure, Evidence, Habeas Corpus, Sentencing |
| Title: | Smith v. Texas |
| Date: | 04/25/07 |
| Case Number: | 05-11287 |
| Summary: | In a first-degree murder and death penalty case in which sentencing took place in between the two Penry decisions of the Supreme Court, denial of relief on collateral review is reversed where a state court's errors of federal law regarding preservation of a Penry claim could not be the predicate for requiring him to show egregious harm, and petitioner appeared to be entitled to relief under the applicable state harmless-error framework. |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Criminal Law & Procedure, Evidence, Habeas Corpus, Sentencing |
| Title: | Brewer v. Quarterman |
| Date: | 04/25/07 |
| Case Number: | 05-11287 |
| Summary: | In a capital murder case, denial of a habeas petition is reversed where the Texas capital sentencing statute, as interpreted by a state court, impermissibly prevented defendant's jury from giving meaningful consideration and effect to constitutionally relevant mitigating evidence. Thus, its decision denying relief under Penry was contrary to, and involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court. |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Criminal Law & Procedure, Evidence, Habeas Corpus, Sentencing |
| Title: | Smith v. Texas |
| Date: | 04/25/07 |
| Case Number: | 05-11287 |
| Summary: | In a first-degree murder and death penalty case in which sentencing took place in between the two Penry decisions of the Supreme Court, denial of relief on collateral review is reversed where a state court's errors of federal law regarding preservation of a Penry claim could not be the predicate for requiring him to show egregious harm, and petitioner appeared to be entitled to relief under the applicable state harmless-error framework. |
| Court: | U.S. Supreme Court |
| Topic: | Criminal Law & Procedure, Evidence |
| Title: | Whorton v. Bockting |
| Date: | 02/28/07 |
| Case Number: | 05-595 |
| Summary: | Under the rules set out in Teague v. Lane, 489 U. S. 288 (1989), the Supreme Court's decision regarding the admissibility of testimonial hearsay evidence under the Sixth Amendment in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), is not retroactive to cases already final on direct review. Crawford announced a "new rule" of criminal procedure which does not fall within the Teague exception for watershed rules. |