Boyer v Louisiana

     In the case, Boyer v Louisiana, Jonathan Edward Boyer was charged for murder back in 2002, and did not get a trial until 2009. The court convicted Boyer for murder and he is now arguing that the state of Louisiana violated his 6th amendment right to a speedy trial. "Specifically, Boyer alleges that five years of delay were caused entirely by Louisiana’s failure to fund his appointed, capitally-certified counsel and that this funding failure should be weighed against the state. Louisiana counters that Boyer has no constitutional right to capitally-certified counsel and that Boyer, not the State, is responsible for the delay. In resolving the question presented, the Supreme Court will determine whether a state’s failure to fund appointed, specially-qualified counsel for an indigent capital defendant should be weighed against the state for speedy trial purposes. The decision may substantially affect indigent defendants’ constitutional rights as well as state procedures for providing indigent capital defense."
     "Boyer appealed his convictions on numerous grounds, including violations of his statutory and constitutional speedy-trial rights. In particular, Boyer alleged the seven-year delay between his original indictment and trial, during which the State held him in jail without bond, caused his mental deterioration and the loss of witnesses, including William Gallier, thereby prejudicing his defense. The Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeal affirmed Boyer’s convictions and sentences, and the Louisiana Supreme Court denied Boyer’s petition for a writ of certiorari. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in the case, limited to the question of whether Louisiana’s failure to fund Boyer’s capitally-certified counsel for five years should be weighed against the State for speedy trial purposes." "The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted."



http://boyavlouisi.weebly.com/



http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/11-9953

Wetzel v. Lambert

This case is discussing the issue, "Did the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals err when it overturned a state court decision denying a death row defendant’s request for a new trial?" "in Pennsylvania back in 1984, a man named James Lambert was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of two bar patrons during a robbery of a place called Prince's Lounge in Philadelphia.  At the murder trial, one of the robbers took the stand for the prosecution and pointed the finger at Mr. Lambert along with another man, Bruce Reese, as being in cahoots with him in robbing the bar. 

Lambert is convicted, the death penalty is imposed, and the appellate process begins.  Twenty years later, Lambert's attorneys advance an argument that error has occurred because the prosecution never disclosed to the defense at trial of the "police activity sheet."  It's a big deal. 

If the state attorneys had done this, then this would fly in the face of longstanding Supreme Court precedent, Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83 (1963). 

What's in the "police activity sheet"?  In that sheet, a photo of a man named Lawrence Woodlock was shown to two people who were at the bar during the robbery.  Woodlock was named as a co-defendant by the state attorneys on the sheet in the Prince's Lounge robbery.  Woodlock had a record of over 13 armed robberies of bars.  Woodlock was already in custody at the time of trial on other charges.

It also had the names of two police investigators in the Lambert case and the names of those who died during the robbery with their corresponding case numbers.  Finally, it had Jackson - Lambert's buddy who took the stand against him - as stating that Woodlock had been involved in the Prince's Lounge job. 

For all these years, much less during the trial, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania had not notified the defense of this document much less provided it to Lambert.  Lambert's counsel was never notified that known armed robber Larry Woodlock had ever been investigated, or had his photo shown to a Prince's Lounge witness. 

It matters because if that police activity sheet were available at trial, Lambert's attorneys could have argued that someone other than Lambert committed the armed robbery at Prince's Lounge - or that there were more people involved in the robbery that the state had been suggesting."

This case was argued on February 21st, 2012. It was also decided on February 21st, 2012. The decision was 6-3, per curiam ruling. I think this case was pretty much already decided and the facts from almost thirty years ago really could not make the initial decision of punishments any different.

http://www.reuters.com/supreme-court/2011-2012

http://www.deathpenaltyblog.com/wetzel-v-lambert-another-us-supreme-court-decision-on-the-frustrating-aedpa/

U.S. Airways v. McCutchen

     In 2007, James McCutchen was involved in a car accident that put him in the ICU. At the time, McCutchen was working for US Airways, and his health insurance from them gave him $66,866 for medical costs. In addition to that money that he received from his own insurance, he received $10,000 from the person who caused the accident and another $100,000 from the uninsured motorist coverage. After McCutchen paid his lawyers 40% contingency fees, he was left with a little under $66,000. When US Airways found out how much money McCutchen had received, they demanded to be reimbursed for the money they gave to him. So McCutchen's lawyers put $41,500 in a trust account for US Airways, but that wasn't enough so they also personally sued McCutchen for the remanding money of $25,366.
     "US Airways based their suit on Section 502(a)(3) of the Employee Retirement Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), which allows plan fiduciaries to sue for "appropriate equitable relief." Relying on a subrogation clause in the Plan, which required reimbursement for "any monies recovered from a third party," the trial court decided that US Airways was entitled to the entire $66,866, regardless of legal expenses. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit decided that Section 502(a)(3) requires courts to provide relief in a manner that is equitable to both parties.Id.. at 679–80.  The Third Circuit determined that requiring McCutchen to reimburse the Plan fully would be inequitable because it would leave McCutchen with less than full coverage for his medical expenses while unjustly enriching US Airways, which did not exercise its subrogation rights or contribute to the cost of obtaining third-party recovery. Id. Therefore, the court ruled that McCutchen need not reimburse US Airways for the entire amount of his medical expenses and US Airways has appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States to reverse the Third Circuit’s ruling."

"The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 this week that James McCutchen, a U.S. Airways, Inc., employee does not have to pay his health plan back all of the money he recovered following a car accident."




http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/11-1285

http://ebn.benefitnews.com/news/supreme-court-issues-decision-us-airways-mccutchen-2732585-1.html

Parker v. Matthews

The issue in this case is whether the 6th Circuit's decision to overturn a 29-year-old double murder conviction violate federal law by second-guessing the decisions of the state courts. "Between 1 and 2 a.m. on the morning of June 29, 1981, respondent David Eugene Matthews broke into the Louisville home he had until recently shared with his estranged wife, Mary Marlene Matthews (Marlene). At the time, Matthews’ mother-in-law, Magdalene Cruse, was staying at the home with her daughter. Matthews found Cruse in bed and shot her in the head at point-blank range, using a gun he had purchased with borrowed funds hours before. Matthews left Cruse there mortally wounded and went into the next room, where he found his wife. He had sexual relations with her once or twice; stayed with her until about 6 a.m.; and then shot her twice, killing her. Cruse would die from her wound later that day.

Matthews was apprehended that morning at his mother’s house, where he had already begun to wash the clothes he wore during the crime. Later in the day, police officers found the murder weapon secreted below the floorboards of a backyard shed on the property. At the police station, Matthews made a tape-recorded statement to a police detective in which he denied responsibility for the murders. A grand jury indicted Matthews for the two murders and for burglary. At trial, he did not contest that he killed the two victims. Instead, he sought to show that he had acted under “extreme emotional disturbance,” which under Kentucky law serves to reduce a homicide that would otherwise be murder to first-degree manslaughter."

This case was argued on June 11th, 2012. It was decided June 11th, 2012 with the decision 9-0, per curiam ruling for Parker. At first I did not agree with the court's decision. With all the evidence against Parker there is no way he was innocent. However further information against his wife shows he just may of had enough with her. Parker's mother and neighbors made claims of his alleged wife doing things like screaming at him across the street when they were seperated, accusing him of sexual relations with their 6-year-old daughter, and also leaving their 6-year-old daugher crying and screaming in the middle of the nights in the street just to antagonize him. Neither one of these parents seem fit to raise this poor child.

http://www.reuters.com/supreme-court/2011-2012

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/11-845

Salazar v. Patchak (linked with Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak)

This case is discussing whether the government can be sued over Indian trust land. David Patchak lives in an area around native Indian-owned land. The federal government took the land into trust so that the owners could build a casino. Patchak is arguing against the District of Columbia district court saying that building this casino would destroy the land. "The court dismissed the case, but the D.C. appeals court overturned that decision and remanded. The Interior Department and the Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band petitioned SCOTUS; the case is linked with Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians v. Patchak."

This debate was argued on April 24th, 2012. The decision was made June 18th, 2012 where it was voted 8-1, in favor of Patchak. In this case I would also vote in favor of Patchak. I agree that the native Indian land should be saved. Although a casino would provide more jobs and maybe boost the economy in that location, I still believe they should save historic land from something as useless as a casino.

http://www.reuters.com/supreme-court/2011-2012

Miller v. Alabama

     In Alabama, Miller went to a trailer to rob a man and beat a man with a baseball bat and then left him in a trailer and set it on fire for him to die. In the state court, Miller was convicted of capitol murdered and sentenced to life in prison with no parole as a 14-year-old minor. When the decision was made, Miller decided to appeal, saying that his 8th amendment rights were being violated. His conviction was confirmed by the Alabama Court of Appeals by saying tat he did not say that the punishment was cruel and unusual. Miller’s petition for a writ of certiorari was denied by the Alabama Supreme Court.
     "On appeal to the United States Supreme Court, Miller argues that the mandatory sentencing scheme under which he was sentenced precludes consideration of his age or any other mitigating circumstances and is therefore in violation of both the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Further, Miller argues that in Roper v. Simmons and Graham v. Florida, the Supreme Court recognized that age is a critical feature in determining a defendant’s culpability, and that by ignoring his age in sentencing the trial court violated the Constitution’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment."

http://www.willamette.edu/wucl/resources/journals/wlo/scotus/2012/03/miller-v-alabama-2.html

Maples v. Thomas

This case was debating whether a mistake in one firm's mailroom could cost an inmate his life. Cory Maples was facing the death sentence in the federal court. "Maples lost the chance to appeal his death sentence when his pro bono attorneys left Sullivan & Cromwell and the firm's mailroom returned a court order unopened with "Return to Sender-Left Firm."" The district court denied his request saying it was a late appeal. This decision was upheld by the 11th circuit. Cory Maples petitioned the supreme court saying that in missed deadline actually was not his fault.

"The state was partly to blame after a court clerk placed the returned letter in a drawer without letting anyone know." This case was argued on October 4, 2001. It was decided on January 18, 2012. The decision was 7-2, in Maples favor. I agree with this decision because had this case not been in Maples favor, a man could die because of something unjust that happened. The people who made the mistake in the courtroom should have some kind of consequence. Cory Maples will still probably have to face the death penalty for his committed crime at some point, just not at this current time.

http://www.reuters.com/supreme-court/2011-2012

Reynolds v. U.S.

Reynolds v. U.S. is handling the issue of  "Does a convicted sex offender have standing to challenge an interim rule that makes 2006’s Federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) retroactive?"  In 2001 Bill Joe Reynolds admitted to sodomy and was registered as a sex offender in Missouri. Six years later when Reynolds traveled to Pennsylvania, he did not register as a sex offender in the state. Reynolds was charged with federal violation of SORNA. SORNA is Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act. He pleaded guilty in the district court but claims the rule was "improperly instituted." 

The third Circuit rejected his appeal. This was argued on October 3, 2011. The case was decided on January 23, 2012. The vote was 7-2, in favor of Reynolds. I think Bill Joe Reynolds is at fault in this case. I think when he moved states he probably was trying to escape his charge because I do not think anyone could forget they are a registered sex offender. When he moved to Pennsylvania he should have take then initiative to register himself. However, the government should make it more known that no matter what state you travel to, you must register yourself if you are a sex offender. 

http://www.reuters.com/supreme-court/2011-2012

Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons

     In the case of Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Wiley brought a claim against Kirstsaeng for violation of  the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101–810. Kirstsaeng was attending school in the US and had imported some od Wiley's textbooks from Thailand and was reselling them in the US. Wiley is claiming that he is not allowed to do that because he violated § 602(a)(1) of the Act, which prohibits the importation of foreign-made works or goods without the copyright owner's authority. "Kirtsaeng claims that, according to the first-sale doctrine codified in § 109(a), he was permitted to resell Wiley’s textbooks in the U.S. without the Respondent’s permission because the doctrine states that a copyright owner loses exclusive rights after the first sale of the work."
     "The Supreme Court ruled last week in Kirtsaeng v. Wiley, a case that centered on the tension between copyright law’s first sale doctrine, codified at 17 U.S.C. §109(a), and the importation restriction found in 17 U.S.C. §602(a).   The express question before the Court was whether the first sale doctrine applies to works manufactured outside the United States.  While the Second Circuit and the Ninth Circuit had each ruled, in some fashion, that the first sale doctrine was limited to works manufactured within the United States, the Supreme Court disagreed with them – and the Solicitor General, holding that the first sale doctrine applies regardless of where the works are manufactured."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/11-697
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=4b45dbc0-2bb0-430e-a36c-f2ed6bbaef33


http://www.gamefront.com/kirtsaeng-v-john-wiley-why-we-should-care/

Florida v. Jardines

     In the Florida v. Jardines case, an anonymous call was made to the Miami-Dade crime stoppers tip-line that there might be marijuana being grown inside the house next to them. So about a month later the Miami-Dade police department and DEA arrived at the house at 7am with a drug dog. After the drug dog confirmed that marijuana was being grown inside the house, the detectives filed for a search warrant and got one about an hour later. So they went back to the house and went inside that marijuana was being grown and arrested Joelis Jardines. Jardines' motion to suppress evidence that was obtained from his home was granted by the court. Jardine was trying to claim that what the police did was an intrusion of his home since they used the dog to search the house before they had a warrant. The government's use of trained police dogs to investigate the home and its immediate surroundings is a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and Supreme Court of Florida affirmed that.

     "Justice Scalia's majority opinion, joined by Justices Kagan, Thomas, Ginsburg and Sotomayor, did not focus on the right to privacy, which is implicated by most modern-day Fourth Amendment cases. Rather, the decision hinged on the basis of a citizen's property rights. It followed the 2012 precedent from United States v. Jones, that when police physically intrude on persons, houses, papers, or effects for the purpose of obtaining information, "a 'search' within the original meaning of the Fourth Amendment" has "undoubtedly occurred." At the "very core" of the Fourth Amendment, the Court said, stands "the right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion." The area "immediately surrounding and associated with the home" — the curtilage — is "part of the home itself for Fourth Amendment purposes." Scalia cited case law as far back as 1765, from Entick v. Carrington, a case before England's Court of King's Bench, quoting, "[O]ur law holds the property of every man so sacred, that no man can set his foot upon his neighbor's close without his leave."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_v._Jardines

Douglas v. Independent Living Center of Southern California (linked with Douglas v. Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital)

Douglas v. Independent Living Center of Southern California is seeking to find out if physicians, hospitals, and pharmacies have the right to sue California over its cuts to Medicaid payments. In 2008 and 2009, California cut its Medicaid reimbursements. After they did this, an alliance of medical providers challenged these cuts. District courts blocked with preliminary injunctions.

The injunctions were upheld by the 9^th Circuit. They found that the state did not do enough studies before they cut payments. California appealed to the Supreme Court. “Schwartz is arguing on behalf of Toby Douglas, the director of California's Department of Health Care Services. The case was her first before the high court, and she argued alongside Deputy Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler.” This case was argued on October 3^rd, 2011 and was decided on February 22^nd, 2012. Five vacated and four remanded.

http://www.reuters.com/supreme-court/2011-2012