Major Criminal Law Decisions of the United States Supreme Court 1998-99 Term

Justice Breyer dissented in a case where a Florida inmate had been on death row for 23 years and had four unsuccessful appeals. He suggested that spending that long on death row without any fault of your own may violate the Eighth Amendment. The majority denied the inmate’s appeal without explanation. Jones was charged with kidnapping and murdering a member of the military, and the jury had to decide whether he should get the death penalty or life in prison. The judge told the jury that if they couldn’t agree on the death penalty, he might get a lesser sentence. The Supreme Court said it was okay for the judge to say that, and they upheld the death penalty. Some justices disagreed and said the jury might have been confused, but it was a close decision. The city of Chicago made a law to stop street gangs, allowing police to tell suspected gang members hanging out in public to leave, and making it a crime to ignore them. People convicted of disobeying this law said it violated their right to fair treatment because it was too unclear and gave police too much power. The Illinois Supreme Court agreed that the law was too vague. The US Supreme Court also agreed, saying the law restricted people’s right to hang out peacefully and didn’t give enough warning about what behavior was illegal. The Court also said the law gave police too much freedom to decide when to enforce it. Some judges disagreed, saying the Court was putting criminals’ rights over those of innocent people in high-crime areas. The decision was 6-3. Boerckel was convicted of rape in Illinois and tried to appeal in federal court. But the Supreme Court said he had to first try to appeal in state court, even though the chances of being heard were really low. Since he didn’t do that, he was not allowed to appeal in federal court and his time to appeal in state court had passed. This decision was to respect the state’s legal process, but some justices disagreed, saying it might just make more work for the state courts. The decision was 6-3. Peguero pled guilty to selling drugs and got a 22-year prison sentence. The judge forgot to tell him he could appeal, but Peguero knew he could anyway. He asked for a new sentence, but the courts said no because he wasn’t harmed by the judge’s mistake. Strickler was found guilty of kidnapping and killing a woman. During the trial, a key witness said she was certain Strickler was the attacker, even though she initially wasn’t sure. The prosecution didn’t show the defense the witness’ first statement to the police, which they should have done. Strickler appealed but was told it was too late, and the court didn’t think the withheld evidence would have changed the verdict. Justice Stevens wrote the majority opinion in the case, upholding the dismissal of Strickler’s petition. He said that Strickler had failed to raise his claim at trial or in his state appeal. Even though the evidence may have changed the outcome, it wasn’t enough to prove prejudice. The majority said there was plenty of other evidence against Strickler. Justice Souter wrote a dissenting opinion, saying that discrediting the primary witness might have swayed one juror. The decision was 7-2. In another case, Lilly was convicted based on a statement made by his coconspirator, his brother. The court allowed this statement to be used as evidence, even though Lilly couldn’t test the credibility of the witness. The Supreme Court decided that if a confession made by someone who committed a crime also blames someone else, it can’t be used in court as evidence against the other person. This is because the person making the confession has a reason to lie and blame someone else to protect themselves. The court also ruled that a city didn’t have to help a person get back their seized property, even though the police didn’t tell the person how to get it back. The court said that the city didn’t violate the person’s rights because they didn’t have to help the person get their stuff back. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court said police don’t have to give property owners instructions about how to get their stuff back after it’s been legally taken. They just have to let the owner know the property has been seized and provide a fair way to get it back. Justices Thomas and Scalia also said that police don’t even have to give notice about seized property. In two other cases, the court said it’s not okay for police to bring news reporters with them when they’re doing a search or arrest at someone’s home. The Supreme Court said that police can’t bring the media or anyone else who isn’t a cop along when they’re executing a search warrant, unless that person can actually help with the warrant. The police argued that having the media around can make them look good and prevent them from doing bad things, but the Court said that didn’t matter. It’s more important to protect people’s privacy in their homes. If a third party can help with the warrant, like by pointing out what the police are supposed to seize, then they can come along. The Court also said that the police in these cases couldn’t get in trouble because the rule against bringing the media along wasn’t clear when they did it. One justice disagreed and said the rule was clear and the officers shouldn’t get special protection. The decision was 8-1 in one case and didn’t say who wrote it in the other. The police saw White using his car to deliver drugs, but didn’t arrest him at the time. Months later, they seized his car from where he worked, saying it was involved in drug crimes. They searched the car and found drugs. White argued that this violated his rights, but the Supreme Court said the police can seize a car without a warrant if they have a good reason to believe it’s involved in a crime. The majority opinion agreed, while a dissenting opinion said there was no urgent need for the search. The vote was 7-2. An Iowa police officer searched Knowles’ car after pulling him over for speeding and finding marijuana. Knowles was charged and convicted of drug possession, but the Supreme Court ruled the search was illegal, because Knowles was not in custody and the search did not have anything to do with the speeding offense. The Court did not address whether the search could be justified if there were mandatory arrests for minor traffic offenses, or for more serious offenses. An anonymous tip led the police to an apartment where they saw people bagging cocaine. The police looked through a gap in the blinds and saw the people in the apartment. The people left the apartment and were arrested, and cocaine was found in their car and the apartment. They argued that the police violated their privacy by looking through the window, but the Minnesota Supreme Court agreed with them. It said that the Fourth Amendment protects the privacy of guests who are doing the same thing as their host, even if they are visiting from out of town. The Supreme Court said that the police officer’s actions were okay and didn’t violate the Fourth Amendment. The majority of the Court said that the Fourth Amendment doesn’t apply here because the guests didn’t have a reasonable expectation of privacy. A few Justices disagreed, saying that all guests should be protected by the Fourth Amendment, but they were outvoted. It was a 6-3 decision. The Wyoming Highway Patrol officer stopped a car for speeding and saw a syringe in the driver’s shirt pocket. The driver admitted to using it for drugs. The officer had probable cause to search the car for drugs, and found methamphetamine in a purse on the back seat. The passenger, Houghton, claimed the drugs were hers and argued that the search of her purse was illegal because she wasn’t suspected of wrongdoing. The Wyoming Supreme Court agreed with Houghton, saying that when an officer knows a container in a car doesn’t belong to the person suspected of a crime, they can’t search it. Mitchell pleaded guilty to drug charges but wanted to dispute the amount of drugs involved. At her sentencing, she didn’t testify and the judge used her silence against her. She appealed, arguing that she had the right to remain silent at her sentencing. The court had to decide if her guilty plea waived her right to stay silent at the sentencing. The Supreme Court made a decision about a defendant’s right to remain silent during her plea and sentencing hearings. The Court said she could have been questioned during her plea hearing, but not during her sentencing. The justices disagreed on whether the judge could use her silence against her. Some think the Court should reconsider the rules about using a person’s silence against them in court. Overall, the Court has been making decisions that give law enforcement more power, and there are more cases coming up that could do the same. The Supreme Court made a lot of decisions, with some being close and causing disagreements among the judges. The upcoming presidential election could change the Supreme Court a lot because some judges might retire or leave because of health reasons. The next president will probably pick a few new judges, so it’s a big deal.

Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/major-criminal-law-decisions-of-the-united-states-supreme-court-1998-99-term/