{ "id": "R44446", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "number": "R44446", "active": true, "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "versions": [ { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 456058, "date": "2016-09-27", "retrieved": "2016-10-17T19:23:58.986206", "title": "United States Supreme Court: Criminal Law Cases in the October 2015 Term", "summary": "The white collar crimes on the Supreme Court\u2019s 2015 docket consist of three Hobbs Act cases and one on computer fraud (Musacchio v. United States). The Hobbs Act outlaws robbery and extortion when committed in a manner which \u201cin any way or degree\u201d obstructs interstate commerce. One of the Hobbs Act cases before the Court (Taylor v. United States) involves the robbery of suspected drug dealers. The second (Ocasio v. United States) consists of a kickback conspiracy between traffic cops and body shop owners. The third (McDonnell v. United States) involves a local drug manufacturer who showered a state governor and his wife with gifts in an apparent attempt to use the governor\u2019s office as a bully pulpit for one of his products. \nThe sex offense entries involve the sex offender registration obligations of an overseas resident (Nichols v. United States) and construction of the recidivist mandatory minimum sentencing provisions of federal law (Lockhart v. United States).\nPerhaps spurred on by the result below, the Supreme Court held that stun guns used for self-defense are not necessarily beyond the guarantees of the Second Amendment right to bear arms (Caetano v. Massachusetts). The other firearms cases on the Court\u2019s docket raise interpretative issues under the Armed Career Criminal Act (Welch v. United States and Mathis v. United States) and the firearm possession disqualification triggered by a domestic violence misdemeanor (Voisine v. United States).\nThe trio of Fourth Amendment cases present questions on the exclusionary rule (Utah v. Strieff), the warrant requirement for sobriety tests (Birchfield v. North Dakota), and qualified official immunity in the face of use of excessive force allegations (Mullenix v. Luna).\nThe Court\u2019s Sixth Amendment cases this term offer a variety of issues ranging from ineffective assistance of counsel (Maryland v. Kulbicki), to speedy trial (Betterman v. Montana), to forfeiture and the right to counsel of choice (Luis v. United States), to the use of uncounseled convictions as predicate offenses (United States v. Bryant).\nCapital punishment cases represent the lion\u2019s share of the Court\u2019s sentencing cases this term. However, the class also includes the matter of the retroactive application of the Miller v. Alabama prohibition on a life without parole sentence for murder by a juvenile (Montgomery v. Louisiana) and the harmless error standard in sentencing cases (United States v. Molina-Martinez).\nThe menu of the Court\u2019s capital punishment cases offers cases concerning jury instructions (Carr v. Kansas); jury selection (Foster v. Chatman); exclusive jury sentencing prerogatives (Hurst v. Florida); Brady violations (Wearry v. Cain); insufficient capital jury instructions (Lynch v. Arizona); appellate court judge recusals (Williams v. Pennsylvania); and the application of habeas corpus standards (White v. Wheeler).\nThe Prisoner Reform Litigation Act, designed to curb frivolous inmate suits, generated two of the cases on the Court\u2019s 2015 docket\u2014one on the act\u2019s installment payment feature (Bruce v. Samuels) and the other on the required exhaustion of administrative remedies (Ross v. Blake).\nAs noted throughout the course of this report, its text draws heavily from previously prepared, individual legal sidebars.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44446", "sha1": "36f42960c7aa80350857ff81f99d2d5baa00e61f", "filename": "files/20160927_R44446_36f42960c7aa80350857ff81f99d2d5baa00e61f.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44446", "sha1": "3109e0ec1c3e7d1ca2bcd14630518b8a5611ca6a", "filename": "files/20160927_R44446_3109e0ec1c3e7d1ca2bcd14630518b8a5611ca6a.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4785, "name": "Supreme Court Jurisprudence" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 451462, "date": "2016-04-06", "retrieved": "2016-04-07T17:29:45.398029", "title": "United States Supreme Court: Criminal Law Cases in the October 2015 Term", "summary": "The white collar crimes on the Supreme Court\u2019s 2015 docket consist of three Hobbs Act cases, one on insider trading (Salman v. United States), and the final on computer fraud (Musacchio v. United States). The Hobbs Act outlaws robbery and extortion when committed in a manner which \u201cin any way or degree\u201d obstructs interstate commerce. One of the Hobbs Act cases before the Court (Taylor v. United States) involves the robbery of suspected drug dealers. The second (Ocasio v. United States) consists of a kickback conspiracy between traffic cops and body shop owners. The third (McDonnell v. United States) involves a local drug manufacturer who showered a state governor and his wife with gifts in an apparent attempt to use the governor\u2019s office as a bully pulpit for one of his products. \nThe sex offense entries involve the sex offender registration obligations of an overseas resident (Nichols v. United States) and construction of the recidivist mandatory minimum sentencing provisions of federal law (Lockhart v. United States).\nPerhaps spurred on by the result below, the Supreme Court held that stun guns used for self-defense are not necessarily beyond the guarantees of the Second Amendment right to bear arms (Caetano v. Massachusetts). The other firearms cases on the Court\u2019s docket raise interpretative issues under the Armed Career Criminal Act (Welch v. United States and Mathis v. United States) and the firearm possession disqualification triggered by a domestic violence misdemeanor (Voisine v. United States).\nThe trio of Fourth Amendment cases present questions on the exclusionary rule (Utah v. Strieff), the warrant requirement for sobriety tests (Birchfield v. North Dakota), and qualified official immunity in the face of use of excessive force allegations (Mullenix v. Luna).\nThe Court\u2019s Sixth Amendment cases this term offer a variety of issues ranging from speedy trial (Betterman v. Montana) to forfeiture and the right to counsel of choice (Luis v. United States) to the use of uncounseled convictions as predicate offenses (United States v. Bryant).\nCapital punishment cases represent the lion\u2019s share of the Court\u2019s sentencing cases this term. However, the class also includes the matter of the retroactive application of the Miller v. Alabama prohibition on a life without parole sentence for murder by a juvenile (Montgomery v. Louisiana) and the harmless error standard in sentencing cases (United States v. Molina-Martinez).\nThe menu of the Court\u2019s capital punishment cases offers cases concerning jury instructions (Carr v. Kansas); jury selection (Foster v. Chatman); exclusive jury sentencing prerogatives (Hurst v. Florida); Brady violations (Wearry v. Cain); appellate court judge recusals (Williams v. Pennsylvania); and the application of habeas corpus standards (White v. Wheeler).\nThe Prisoner Reform Litigation Act, designed to curb frivolous inmate suits, generated two of the cases on the Court\u2019s 2015 docket\u2014one on the act\u2019s installment payment feature (Bruce v. Samuels) and the other on the required exhaustion of administrative remedies (Ross v. Blake).\nAs noted throughout the course of this report, its text draws heavily from previously prepared, individual legal sidebars, published and yet to published.\nThis report will be revised after the end of the Term.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44446", "sha1": "46de3c5d0e24ecc7939e6c8f28122558e75e6f19", "filename": "files/20160406_R44446_46de3c5d0e24ecc7939e6c8f28122558e75e6f19.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44446", "sha1": "bf1cf966a79150e590c7ebc13cfb7411055c80b5", "filename": "files/20160406_R44446_bf1cf966a79150e590c7ebc13cfb7411055c80b5.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [] } ], "topics": [ "American Law" ] }