Posts

Showing posts with the label SCOTUS

Prosecuting a true threat requires at least a reckless state of mind

Counterman v. Colorado (SCOTUS June 27, 2023) Background. Billy Counterman was charged by Colorado prosecutors for harassment and stalking. For two years, Billy Counterman sent a local musician hundreds of messages on Facebook. Messages started with “A fine display with your partner” and a “couple physical sightings” were sent to her. She never responded. The messages took a turn: “Fuck off permanently.” “Staying in cyber life is going to kill you.” “You’re not being good for human relations. Die.”   The musician got scared and believed her life was in danger. She went to the authorities. Colorado has a statute criminalizing repeated communications “that would cause a reasonable person to suffer serious emotional distress and does cause that person . . . to suffer serious emotional distress.” Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-3-602(1)(c). Counterman moved to dismiss on the grounds that it was not a true threat under the First Amendment. Counterman challenged the objective “reasonable pe...

The Police Care-Taking Function does not Extend Inside the Home

  Caniglia v. Strom (SCOTUS May 17, 2021) Background. Edward Caniglia was arguing with his wife at home in Rhode Island. He took a handgun from the bedroom, put it on the dining room table, and told his wife to “shoot [him] now and get it over with.” She left the house and checked into a hotel. When he did not answer the phone the next day, she called the police to conduct a welfare check at the house. She went home with the police and saw Caniglia was still alive and did not want to go to the hospital for a psychiatric examination. He was eventually coaxed out and made the police promise that they would not take away his guns. After he left the house, the police went inside the residence and confiscated two handguns.   Caniglia sued the police on the grounds that they violated his Fourth Amendment rights. The District Court granted summary judgment for the police and it was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals First Circuit. The SCOTUS took certiorari. ...

A Rejected Offer (After a full and Fair Trial) may be Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

Lafler v. Cooper (SCOTUS March 21, 2012) Note. This is the companion case to Missouri v. Frye . Background. Anthony Cooper fired a gun at Kali Mundy's head. He missed and Mundy fled. Cooper chased Mundy and fired at her some more. She was hit in her buttock, hip, and stomach, but survived. Cooper was charged with assault with the intent to murder, possession of a firearm in the commission of a felony, and a misdemeanor for possession of marijuana. Twice the prosecution offered to dismiss two charges and recommend at sentencing 51 to 85 months for the other two in exchange for a guilty plea. Cooper admitted guilt to the court and appeared to be ready to take the deal. But his attorney persuaded him to reject the offer after opining that they would be unable to prove murderous intent because Mundy was shot below the waist. Cooper then rejected the offers. On the first day of trial, the prosecution made a third offer on much favorable terms; again it was rejected. Cooper was fou...

Failure to Inform Defendant of Formal Plea Offer May be Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

Missouri v. Frye (SCOTUS March 21, 2012) Background. Galin Frye was charged with driving with a revoked license. This was his third offense so it was a felony with a potential sentence for four years prison. The prosecutor sent to Frye's counsel a written plea offer. The prosecutor gave Frye a choice: if he pleaded guilty to the felony, the prosecution would recommend a three-year sentence and 10-days jail, but would not recommend probation. The other option was that the prosecutor would reduce the charge to a misdemeanor and a 90-day jail sentence. Frye's attorney did not inform him about the plea offers and the offers expired. Just before the preliminary hearing, Frye was arrested again for driving with a revoked license. He pleaded guilty without an agreement. The prosecutor recommended a 3-year sentence, made no recommendation for probation, and 10-days jail. The judge sentenced Frye to prison for three years. Frye filed for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective a...

Resurrecting a Property-Based Fourth Amendment Analysis

United States v. Jones (SCOTUS January 23, 2012) Background. Antoine Jones owned and operated a nightclub in the District of Columbia. He was suspected by the FBI and the DC police of trafficking narcotics. The police used a bevy of investigative techniques like visual surveillance of the nightclub, cameras at the door of the club, a pen register and a wire tap of Mr. Jones' phone. The government applied for a warrant to install on Jones' Jeep Grand Cherokee an electronic tracking device or Global Positioning System (GPS). The warrant authorized installation of the device in DC and was limited to 10 days. Eleven days after the warrant was issued the government installed the device in the State of Maryland. For the next 28 days, the government tracked the vehicle. During that time, the government replaced the battery of the GPS in a public parking lot in Maryland. The government ultimately brought charges of cocaine trafficking. Jones filed a motion to suppress the eviden...

Apology Resolution has no Legal Effect on Admission Act.

Hawaii v. OHA (SCOTUS March 31, 2009) Background.   In 1893, the Hawaiian Kingdom was replaced with the Republic of Hawaii.   Under the Newlands Resolution of 1898, Congress proclaimed that the Republic of Hawaii ceded Government and Crown Lands to the federal government in fee.   In 1900, the Territory of Hawaii was established and Congress passed the Organic Act of 1900, which "made clear that the new Territory consisted of the land that the United States acquired in 'absolute fee.'"   In 1959, Congress admitted Hawaii to the Union through the Admissions Act.   The Admissions Act stated that "the United States grant[ed] to the State of Hawaii . . . the United States' title to all the public lands and other public property within the boundaries of the State of Hawaii[.]"   Admission Act § 5(b).   Public lands were held in trust to promote public purposes like the betterment of Native Hawaiians, developing home ownership, and public education.   Admis...