Briefs:
Parties
|
|
Jay Shawn Johnson v. California
No. 04-6964
Subject:
Juries, Equal Protection, Fourteenth Amendment, Peremptory Challenges, Discrimination, Criminal Law
Question:
Whether to establish a prima facie case under Batson v. Kentucky, 476
U.S. 79 (1986), the objector must show that it is more likely than not the
other party's peremptory challenges, if unexplained, were based on
impermissible group bias.
Decisions:
- California Court of Appeal
 Opinion Filed: April 5, 2001
- California Supreme Court Opinion Filed: June 30, 2003
- United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: December 1, 2003
- United States Supreme Court, Order of Dismissal, May 3, 2004
- California Court of Appeal, Unpublished Opinion Filed: August 5, 2004
- United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: January 7, 2005
Resources:
|
Briefs:
Parties
|
|
|
Tuesday, April 19
Margaret Bradshaw, Warden v. John David Stumpf
No. 04-637
Subject:
Guilty Plea, Voluntariness, Due Process, Grounds to Vacate, Criminal Law
Questions:
- Is a representation on the record from defendant's counsel and/or the
defendant that defense counsel has explained the elements of the
charge to the defendant, sufficient to show the voluntariness of the
guilty plea under Henderson v. Morgan, 426 U.S. 637, 647 (1976)?
- Does the Due Process Clause require that a defendant's guilty plea be
vacated when the State subsequently prosecutes another person in
connection with the crime and allegedly presents evidence at the
second defendant's trial that is inconsistent with the first defendant's
guilt?
Decisions:
Resources:
|
Briefs:
Parties
|
|
Counsel of Record
For Petitioner Bradshaw:
Diane Richards Brey
Deputy Solicitor
Columbus, OH
For Respondent Stumpf:
Alan M. Freedman
Midwest Center for Justice
Evanston, IL
|
|
|
Deneice A. Mayle, Warden v. Jacoby Lee Felix
No. 04-563
Subject:
Habeas Corpus, Amended Petition, New Claim, Statute of Limitations, Criminal Law
Question:
When a habeas petitioner challenging a state judgment amends his petition
to include a new claim, does the amendment relate back to the date of the
filing of his petition and thus avoid the one-year statute of limitations, 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1), so long as the new claim stems from the prisoner's
trial, conviction, or sentence?
Decisions:
Resources:
|
Briefs:
Parties
|
|
Counsel of Record
For Petitioner Mayle:
Mathew K. M. Chan
Deputy Attorney General
Sacramento, CA
For Respondent Felix:
David M. Porter
Assistant Federal Defender
Sacramento, CA
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, April 20
Merck KGaA v. Integra Lifesciences I, Ltd., et al.
No. 03-1237
Subject:
Patent Law, Drug-Research Safe Harbor, Animal Studies
Question:
To encourage development and expedite introduction of
pharmaceuticals, Congress amended the patent laws in 1984 to insulate
drug research from charges of infringement so long as the research is
"reasonably related to the development and submission of information" to
the Food and Drug Administration. Did the Federal Circuit err in concluding
that this drug-research safe harbor does not protect animal studies of the
sort that are essential to the development of new drugs, where the
research will be presented to the FDA, and where barring the research
until expiration of the patent could mean years of delay in the availability
of life-saving new drugs?
Decisions:
Resources:
|
Briefs:
Parties
|
|
Graham County Soil & Water Conservation District, et al. v. United States, ex rel. Karen T. Wilson
No. 04-169
Subject:
Statute of Limitations, Retaliatory Discharge, False Claims Act
Question:
Whether the six year limitation period set out in 31 U.S.C. § 3731(b) should be applied to retaliatory discharge actions under the false claims act or whether courts should apply the most closely analogous state limitation period.
Decisions:
Resources:
|
Briefs:
Parties
|
|
Counsel of Record
For Petitioner Graham Co. Soil & Water
Conservation District, et al.:
Christopher G. Browning Jr.
North Carolina Department of Justice
Raleigh, NC
For Respondent U.S., ex rel. Wilson:
Mark T. Hurt
Abington, VA
|
|
|
|
Monday, April 25
Antonio Dwayne Halbert v. Michigan
No. 03-10198
Subject:
Right to Counsel, Sentencing, Fourteenth Amendment, Due Process, Right to Effective Assistance of Counsel, Criminal Law
Question:
- Does Michigan's law and practice of not appointing counsel to indigent
defendants convicted by guilty plea, violate Petitioner's Fourteenth
Amendment right to due process?
- Is Petitioner entitled to resentencing, where counsel failed to render
effective assistance by not objecting to improper scoring under Michigan's
sentencing guidelines which resulted in Petitioner receiving a considerably
longer sentence?
Decisions:
Resources:
|
Briefs:
Parties
|
|
Counsel of Record
For Petitioner Halbert:
David A. Moran
Wayne State University Law School
Detroit, MI
For Respondent Michigan:
Michael Cox
Office of the Attorney General
Lansing, MI
|
|
|
Aurelio O. Gonzalez v. James V. Crosby Jr., Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections
No. 04-6432
Subject:
Habeas Corpus, Rule 60(b) Motion, Successive Petition
Question:
Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that every Rule 60(b) motion
(other than for fraud under (b)(3)) constitutes a prohibited "second or
successive" petition as a matter of law, in square conflict with decisions of
this Court and of other circuits.
Decisions:
Resources:
|
Briefs:
Parties
|
|
Counsel of Record
For Petitioner Gonzalez:
Paul M. Rashkind
Assistant Federal Public Defender
Miami, FL
For Respondent Crosby:
Cassandra K. Dolgin
Assistant Attorney General
Tallahassee, FL
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, April 26
American Trucking Associations, Inc., et al. v. Michigan Public Service Commission, et al.
No. 03-1230
Mid-Con Freight Systems, Inc., et al. v. Michigan Public Service Commission, et al.
No. 03-1234
Subject:
Commerce Clause, Interstate Commerce, Vehicle Fee, Preemption
Questions:
- Whether the $100 fee upon vehicles conducting intrastate operations violates
the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.
- Whether the $100 fee upon vehicles operating solely in interstate commerce is
preempted by 49 U.S.C. § 14504.
Decisions:
- Michigan Court of Appeals Opinion Filed: March 11, 2003
- United States Supreme Court, Cert. Granted: January 14, 2005
- United States Supreme Court, Amended Order Granting Cert.: January 21, 2005
Resources:
|
Briefs:
Parties
|
|
Counsel of Record
For Petitioners American
Trucking Associations, Inc., et al.:
Charles Rothfeld
Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP
Washington, DC
For Petitioners Mid-Con Freight
Systems, Inc., et al.:
James H. Hanson
Scopelitits, Garvin,
Light & Hanson, P.C.
Indianapolis, IN
For Respondents Michigan Public
Service Commission, et al.:
Thomas L. Casey
Michigan Solicitor General
Lansing, MI
|
|
|
Ricky Bell, Warden v. Gregory Thompson
No. 04-514
Subject:
Habeas Corpus, Death Penalty, Withdrawal of Opinion, Notice, Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 41(d)(2)(D)
Question:
Did the Sixth Circuit abuse its discretion by withdrawing its opinion
affirming the denial of habeas corpus relief six months after Fed. R. App. P.
41(d)(2)(D) made issuance of the mandate mandatory, without notice to the
parties or any finding that the court's action was necessary to prevent a
miscarriage of justice, particularly where state judicial proceedings to enforce
the inmate's death sentence had progressed in reliance upon the finality of
the judgment in the federal habeas proceedings?
Decisions:
Resources:
|
Briefs:
Parties
|
|
Counsel of Record
For Petitioner Bell:
Jennifer L. Smith
Associate Deputy Attorney General
Nashville, TN
For Respondent Thompson:
Dana Hansen Chavis
Federal Defender Services
Knoxville, TN
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, April 27
Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States
No. 04-368
Subject:
Witness Tampering, Jury Instructions
Question:
Whether Arthur Andersen LLP's conviction for witness tampering under 18
U.S.C. § 1512(b) must be reversed because the jury instructions upheld by
the Fifth Circuit misinterpreted the elements of the offense, in conflict with
decisions of this Court and the Courts of Appeals for the First, Third, and
D.C. Circuits.
Decisions:
Resources:
|
Briefs:
Parties
|
|
