Interesting Pending Decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court

SCOTUSblog is a great site which follows the U.S. Supreme so closely that I'm surprised that it doesn't tell us what the Justices eat the mornings that they hear arguments. I just went through and looked for the big crimlaw cases for the year that will affect Virginia and other States. After each case I will put my gut reaction (without any actual research on the issue).

Michigan v. Bryant - Is a declaration made by a person who is injured, and probably dying, admissible without the declarant testifying?
-----
Reaction: I think that as constitutional interpretation currently stands testimonial statements shouldn't be allowed unless the defendant killed the victim to keep him from testifying. However, there is also the concurrent issue of whether something is testimonial or not, as determined by whether it was an emergency plea for help concurrent with an ongoing dangerous situation or a statement meant to result in the arrest and prosecution of the offender. This test is entirely situational and I don't see how the Court could change this unless it went back to the pre-Crawford fiction that fulfillment of hearsay rules satisfies confrontation.

---

Connick v. Thompson - Can a prosecutor's office be held responsible for the bad acts of a single prosecutor in a single instance because of its inadequate training?
-----
Reaction: I listened to the oral argument in this case and the Justices seemed very hostile to the plaintiff. The Justices kept wanting to talk about sufficiency of the evidence (phrasing it several different ways) and the plaintiff's attorney kept tactfully telling them that is not their business; the jury decided facts. I don't know what rationale the Court will use, but I'm pretty sure they will find for the prosecutor's office.

---

Premo v. Moore - If a defendant pled guilty can he raise a habeas based upon the allegation that his attorney should have moved to suppress his confession?
-----
Reaction: Before answering this question, I'd want to know if the possibility that the confession could have been suppressed was used in the negotiations to get the defendant a lesser sentence. If not, (1) should the statement have been suppressed, and (2) would the confession not have been redundant?

---

Cullen v. Pinholster - Can a federal court overturn a state court conviction on the basis of facts the defendant did not allege in state court?
-----
Reaction: Not unless the evidence (1) was not, and could not have been, discovered prior to trial, or (2) the defense attorney was incompetent and lazy and just didn't do his job. The defendant shouldn't be rewarded for making the tactical decision not to introduce evidence or to remain willfully blind as to evidence.

---

Wall v. Kholi - Is the one year limit in filing a federal habeas tolled by a defendant's state court motion to reduce his sentence?
-----
Reaction: If the motion to reduce was based upon grounds which could have been raised on appeal, yes. If the motion to reduce was based upon the Big Four, no.

---

Walker v. Martin - If a defendant could not file a state appeal because he "substantially delayed" his appeal, can he still file a federal habeas?
-----
Reaction: No. Well, not unless he can show the failure to file was the attorney's malpractice.

---

Kentucky v. King - What are the limitations on an officer's ability to create exigent circumstances and thus not have to get a warrant?
-----
Reaction: Huh? Create? If you mean do legal things which reveal illegal things, no limitation (knock and talks, consensual conversations, etc.).

---

Bond v. U.S. - Can a defendant challenge his conviction on the grounds that the Congress has violated the 10th Amendment in passing the law?
-----
Reaction: Yes.

---

Alford v. Greene - What must the government do before it can take a child who is in school in order to investigate child abuse?
-----
Reaction: Why is the federal Supreme Court dealing with this State issue?

---

Camreta v. Green - What circumstances require the police to get a warrant before questioning a child about sexual abuse?
-----
Reaction: The federal Supreme Court reslly, really wants to deal with this issue.

---

Bullcoming v. New Mexico - Can a supervisor who did not prepare a certificate of analysis fulfill testimonial obligations in court?
-----
Reaction: No. You don't have to drag all the technicians in who run the analytical machines, but you have to have the person who actually interpreted/analyzed the information which came from the machine and filled out the certificate.

---

Tolentino v. New York - When police violate the 4th Amendment in order to get pre-existing documents concerning the defendant must the documents be excluded?
-----
Reaction: Yes, but the Court is so hostile to excluding evidence that it will probably come up with some sort of pretzel bending sophistry to come to the opposite conclusion.

---

Davis v. United States - If police acted in good faith, pursuant to legal precedent, in executing a search, must the fruit of the search be excluded if precedent changes to make the search unconstitutional?
-----
Reaction: It is unfair to the police, but if a decision results in the exclusion of evidence in the case appealed it should also result in exclusion in all other pending cases with the same issue.

---

JDB v. North Carolina - Can a court take into consideration a child's age in deciding whether the child felt she was free to leave during police questioning?
-----
Reaction: Yes.

---

Lafler v. Cooper - If a defendant went to trial in state court and was convicted, can he base a federal habeas petition on the allegation that his attorney deficiently advised him to refuse a favorable plea agreement?
-----
Reaction: Yes. The question is how you prove deficient advice in the rejection of the plea agreement. Plea agreements are usually going to be better than the result of a lost trial. Therefore, the test cannot be whether the trial got the defendant a worse result. There'd have to be a presumption that the decision to reject was a tactical trial decision.

Missouri v. Frye - Can a defendant raise a federal habeas based upon the allegation that his defense attorney failed to tell him about a better deal than the one he got? Is there a remedy for pretrial failure of the defense attorney if the actual courtroom procedure was valid?
-----
Reaction: Yes, if the appellant can actually prove he wasn't told of the deal.