Supreme Court Preview - Cornell Law School's Legal Information Institute

Important Criminal Cases on the 2011–2012 Docket

Fourth Amendment Rights

In United States v. Jones, No. 08-3034, the Court will rule on the police use of Global Positioning System (“GPS”) tracking devices. The lower court held that the police violated Antoine Jones’ Fourth Amendment rights by secretly installing a GPS tracking device on his car, and operating the device for 28 days, without obtaining a warrant. In addition to deciding whether the prolonged use of a tracking device violates the Fourth Amendment, the Court will address a second question: did the installation of the GPS device on Jones’ car, with neither Jones’ consent nor a warrant, violate the Fourth Amendment. The Court will determine whether this “dragnet” type of monitoring violates the Fourth Amendment, and will resolve inconsistencies in the lower courts regarding GPS tracking.

Post-Conviction Procedure

The Court has granted certiorari on a number of cases addressing the post-conviction procedure to which a convicted prisoner is entitled. In Maples v. Thomas, No. 10-63, a prisoner alleging constitutional violations was denied federal post-conviction review in his capital case because, through no fault of his own, he missed a filing deadline. The Supreme Court has granted certiorari in order to determine whether the Eleventh Circuit was correct in holding that, even though the passing of the deadline was not the prisoner’s fault – and, in fact, was partially attributable to the State’s conduct – there was insufficient cause to excuse the prisoner’s failure to comply with filing requirements.

In Howes v. Fields, No. 10-680, the Court will determine whether separating an inmate from the general population, and questioning him about incidents that occurred outside of the prison, constitutes custody under all circumstances.

In Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders, No. 10-945, the Court will address the procedure required prior to strip searching a prison inmate; in particular, the Court will decide whether an official can conduct a strip search without a specific basis for suspicion.

Lafler v. Cooper, No. 10-209, concerns a plea bargain that Mr. Cooper rejected on the basis of erroneous advice from his lawyer. (There is reason to believe, given the facts involved, that Mr. Cooper would have accepted the plea if he had been given better advice.) After a full trial, Mr. Cooper was convicted. During post-conviction review, the Sixth Circuit found a violation of Mr. Cooper’s Sixth Amendment rights. The Court will determine whether these circumstances merit relief, and, if any relief is merited, what form it should take in light of the fact that conviction resulted from constitutional procedures.

Children under 10 - Interim Judiciary Hearing

Lexington Herald-Leader

No Criminal Charges for Children 10 or Younger, Officials Suggest to Legislators

Each year, the misbehavior of about 400 Kentucky children 10 or younger — some as young as 5 — results in criminal complaints on charges including harassment, assault and being beyond the control of an adult.

On Wednesday, three state officials asked legislators on the Interim Joint Committee on Judiciary for a law that would prohibit children 10 or younger from facing criminal charges. Instead, their misbehavior would be addressed through the social service system.

The legislative committee is hearing testimony to see what changes might need to be made during the 2012 General Assembly to current laws, which according to a state court official have allowed 2,704 children 10 or younger to be criminally charged from 2005 to 2010.

Featured Case - Tigue - Absense of Counsel for Withdraw of Guilty Plea

Tigue v. Commonwealth, 2009-CA-000080 & 2009-CA-001279 – rendered September 9, 2011

Reversing and Remanding

 The defendant filed RCr 11.42 and CR 60.02 motions and the Court of Appeals granted relief when it held that the defendant was deprived of counsel at a critical stage of the proceeding when counsel either refused or failed to file a motion to withdraw his guilty plea.  The Court found that the filing of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea is a critical stage of the proceeding, and the absence of counsel at a critical stage of the proceeding is a per se Sixth Amendment violation warranting reversal of a conviction or sentence without analysis for prejudice or harmless error.

In light of the importance of counsel’s assistance in properly framing the issues and presenting those issues to the court, as well as developing any factual support and being knowledgeable about the requirement of a written motion and the elements considered by a trial court on a motion to withdraw a guilty plea, we agree with these state and federal courts. Thus, we hold that Tigue was deprived of counsel at a critical stage of the proceeding when counsel either refused or failed to file a motion to withdraw Tigue’s guilty plea.

We find that the filing of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea is a critical stage of the proceeding, and it is well-established that the “absence of counsel at a critical stage of a criminal proceeding is a per se Sixth Amendment violation warranting reversal of a conviction, a sentence, or both, as applicable, without analysis for prejudice or harmless error.”

Contributed by Steven Buck

Lexington Herald Leader - Reform Urgent to Protect Innocent

Miscarriage of Justice

We hope that by the time you read this, Kerry R. Porter will be a free man, after serving 14 years in prison for a murder he did not commit.

....

Porter's story is the nightmare of a society that values liberty and justice. There are steps lawmakers and courts must take to avert more such nightmares.

The editorial explains reforms needed to eyewitness identification, eligibility for DNA testing, disclosure of new evidence and compensation to those wrongfully convicted.  Kerry Porter is represented by the DPA's Kentucky Innocence Project.

Read more at complete editorial

 

Kentucky Adapts Reclaiming Futures Model for Status Offenders

The Kentucky Reclaiming Futures framework identifies the critical stages of implementing a successful plan for youth who have been or are at risk of being charged with a status offense. The framework consists of six stages that direct how the juvenile justice system, other youth serving agencies and organizations, and the community can work together to reduce the secure detention of youth charged with status offenses and work toward positive outcomes for these youth and their families.

Download Reclaiming Futures in Kentucky: Applying a proven framework for an effective community and judicial response to status offenses and other complex needs of youth in rural and urban settings. 

Reclaiming Future Blog post on this issue  - Kentucky Adapts Reclaiming Futures Model for Status Offenders

Grider - Prosecutorial Misconduct

     Commonwealth v. Grider, 09-CA-2080-MR, published.Court of Appeals, August 12, 2010

      The Commonwealth appealed a trial court’s order granting Grider’s motion to dismiss an indictment charging him with 15 counts of trafficking in a controlled substance and bribing a witness.  The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded.  Grider owned three pharmacies.  In the course of investigations against him, 124 boxes of documents were seized from his pharmacies.  Grider sought access to those documents and the trial court ordered the documents to return the originals or make copies to Grider.  Over two years later, Grider filed a motion to dismiss the indictment or to hold the case in abeyance for the Commonwealth’s failure to turn over the original documents or to provide meaningful access to the documents.  The trial court agreed and dismissed the indictment without prejudice.  The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s dismissal because the trial court did not try to compel compliance by a less severe penalty, e.g., using its contempt powers or refer any “recalcitrant attorney to the KBA for appropriate disciplinary proceedings.”  

     Practice Tip: before asking for a dismissal of an indictment due to a prosecutor’s misconduct, first ask the trial court to use its contempt powers or refer the prosecutor to the KBA for disciplinary proceedings.

     Contributed by Robert Yang

DPA East Region Awards

Earlier this month the DPA's Eastern Region gave out their first award.

Horizon Award.  Given for the best legal argument or effort to expand and protect client rights.  The 2011 winner was Angela Darcy for her successful efforts to “kick” KAPS out of Pike County.  The result has been a change in how fines are collected in Pike County.

Sleuth Award.  Given to the investigator whose significant investigation changed the course of a case.   The 2011 winner was Marvin Montgomery for his obtaining a statement that so altered a  difficult case that during jury selection a plea agreement for a misdemeanor was reached.   

Above and Beyond Award.  Given to the person or person whose efforts created a second chance for a client.  This year’s co-winners were Julie Edwards who managed to keep track of the multiple sets(in batches of 200 at a time) of jurors in two different counties in the Jackson trial and Myles Holbrook whose advocacy on behalf of a juvenile client with mental illness and a history of  violence resulted in all charges being dismissed and an investigation opened for a foster father for sexual abuse.  

Big Hitter Award.  Given to the person or person whose case attracted (often unwanted) media attention and whose case proved to be particularly difficult. This year’s winners were the Clayton Jackson trial team consisting of Barbara Carnes, Roger Gibbs, Randy Edwards, Julie Edwards, Mike Parks, and Mary Gina Conner.  This team tried this case in two counties, went through several hundred jurors and spent 35 days in trial.  Most significant no death verdict.

Two special awards.   The first was the Keystone Award.  Just as  a Keystone is one of the most important stones in holding a structure together, this award was for the person who kept it all together for an office as it moved from one location to another, took on new assignments and yet maintained a high degree of professionalism during some of the most trying of times and unexpected circumstances.  The 2011 award winner was Diannah Arnett of the Prestonsburg office.

The second special award is the Catalyst Award and is for the person we wanted to recognize as having made significant changes.   A catalyst is defined as a change agent that when added to the mix speeds up the reaction and produces something new.   For her outstanding work in Morehead as well as her willingness to train all across DPA the 2011 winner is Sarah Johnson.