Buchanan was convicted of a serious crime and his lawyer tried to argue for a lesser punishment based on his age and mental capacity. The jury was told to consider all the evidence before deciding on the punishment. Buchanan wanted a new hearing, but the Supreme Court said the original instructions were enough. The Court thought it was unlikely the jury didn’t consider all the evidence. The decision was 6-3. Reeves was convicted of murder and sentenced to death in Nebraska. He argued that the jury should have been told they could find him guilty of a lesser offense, but the Supreme Court disagreed.
Monge was convicted of selling marijuana in California and the state tried to give him a longer sentence because of a previous assault conviction. The appeals court said the state didn’t prove the assault was serious enough to count, and the California Supreme Court said it wasn’t a violation of double jeopardy to try to prove it again. The Supreme Court ruled that a white man can challenge his murder indictment in Louisiana because the process for selecting grand jury forepersons was racially biased. The Court said that whites can stand up for the rights of blacks in the justice system, and that discrimination in the selection of grand jurors affects the whole justice process. Some justices disagreed, saying that letting a white murderer go free doesn’t help black people. The decision was 7-2. Woodard was sentenced to death and asked to have his lawyer at a clemency hearing, but the Parole Authority didn’t respond. He sued, saying the clemency process violated his rights. The court found in favor of the Parole Authority on one claim, but in favor of Woodard on another. The Supreme Court agreed with the lower court on the first claim, but not on the second. The Court said that clemency is a hope, not a right, so it doesn’t violate due process. And they said that the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination doesn’t apply to voluntary proceedings, like a clemency hearing. 9-0 decision. Brogan was convicted for lying to the IRS during an investigation. The Supreme Court said that the “exculpatory no” defense doesn’t apply, so people can be prosecuted for lying to law enforcement.
Gray and Bell were tried together for murder. Bell confessed and pointed the finger at Gray. The confession was read in court with Gray’s name replaced by “deleted.” Gray argued this violated his right to cross-examine witnesses. The state supreme court said the confession can be used as evidence, even with the names removed. The Supreme Court ruled that if a confession isnât properly redacted, the jury might figure out who the confession is about. In another case, the Court said that a sheriff could be convicted of bribery and violating a corruption law, even if the bribery didnât directly involve federal funds. The Supreme Court had to decide if a lawyer’s notes from a meeting with a White House official could be kept private even though the official had passed away. The Court said yes, because the lawyer-client relationship should be protected, even after the client has died. The decision was 6-3 in favor of protecting the notes. Airman Scheffer was court-martialed for using drugs and wanted to use a lie detector test as evidence to show he was innocent. The military judge didn’t allow it, and he was convicted. He appealed, saying the rule against using lie detector tests violated his right to defend himself. The Supreme Court ruled that the rule is okay because lie detector tests aren’t always reliable. The decision applies to all courts, and most courts don’t allow lie detector test results as evidence. An inmate filed a lawsuit against a prison official, claiming that she intentionally withheld his belongings as punishment for filing lawsuits. The lower courts ruled in favor of the official, but the Supreme Court said the case should proceed and the inmate can gather evidence to prove the official’s motive. Kalina, a prosecutor, made some mistakes in documents that led to someone being wrongly arrested. The person sued her, saying she violated their rights. The court said that she can’t claim complete immunity because she was acting more like an investigator than a prosecutor when she made the mistakes. She might still be protected from the lawsuit if she can prove that her mistakes were not intentional. In the first case, the Supreme Court ruled that police officers can only be held liable for injuries in high-speed pursuits if they have a purpose to cause harm unrelated to making an arrest.
In the second case, the Supreme Court decided that the Americans with Disabilities Act applies to prisons and requires them to treat qualified individuals with disabilities fairly. In a case about parole, the court decided that the exclusionary rule (which says illegally obtained evidence can’t be used in court) doesn’t apply to parole hearings. This means that evidence found in an illegal search can still be used to revoke someone’s parole. The court said that applying the exclusionary rule in these cases might stop probation officers from doing illegal searches. The Supreme Court ruled that the exclusionary rule does not apply to parole revocation hearings, meaning that evidence obtained illegally can still be used in those hearings. The majority opinion was that suppressing evidence would have little impact on deterring parole officers and would make revocation hearings more complicated. The dissent argued that this ruling gives parole officers too much power. This is a big decision because there are millions of people on probation or parole who could face revocation hearings. It was a close decision, with five justices in favor and four against.
In another case, the Supreme Court ruled that police can use a no-knock search warrant to enter a home without first announcing themselves if they have a good reason to believe it’s necessary. In this case, the police broke a window to enter the home and found weapons inside. The person who lived there argued that the evidence should be thrown out because the police didn’t have enough evidence to justify entering the home the way they did. The district court and the Ninth Circuit agreed, and the evidence was suppressed. The Supreme Court made a big decision in 1997 about when police can enter a home with a warrant. They said that police only need to have a good reason to believe someone is inside, and a little property damage from entering doesn’t make it illegal. The Court didn’t talk much about other criminal justice issues like the death penalty or sex offender laws. The Court tends to support police and law enforcement. There are several cases coming up that could give law enforcement even more power. These cases might have a big impact on how justice is carried out. Some cases from last term include issues about citizenship and search warrants.
Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/major-criminal-decisions-of-the-u-s-supreme-court-1997-term/
Leave a Reply