The U.S. Supreme Court struggled during oral arguments Wednesday over whether its landmark Miranda ruling allows criminal suspects to file civil suits against police officers who don't warn them of their rights against self-incrimination.
West Virginia used-car dealers file motion to suppress evidence obtained during search, and four years later a court agrees that the state trooper who applied for the warrant omitted important facts and made misleading statements and dismisses the criminal charges (failing to disclose to customers that their cars had been totaled before being refurbished) with prejudice. Fourth Circuit: But it's too late for them to sue the trooper over the unconstitutional search. They should have sued while the criminal case was still pending.
Two Richmond, Va. police approached a man walking on the street whom they believe match the description of a suspect. Cops: "Yo! Let me talk to you real quick" and motioned man to come over. Man: "Nah" and kept walking. Cop: Yo! Hey! And continued towards man. Man: about to take off running but immediately trips and fall. Cops tackle and arrest man, then searched the bag the man had on him, which contained a gun and box of ammunition. Man: firearm and un-Mirandized statements made after gun found should be suppressed. District court: no, cops had reasonable suspicion.
Sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenges to a criminal conviction are notoriously difficult to win. California man and alleged gang member charged with drug conspiracy. Man: I left gang and bought drugs for my use. Contacts with gang is for friendship purpose. Jury: we believe defense and prosecution. Acquits on some distribution charges; convicts on drug distribution conspiracy and gun charges. Man appeals.
Eyewitness accounts are the backbone of evidence; we trust few things more than what appears before our very eyes. But how do you know if you're right and if what you're seeing is accurate? And what if you're wrong? (view full article).
The Supreme Court on Thursday in Hemphill v. New York sided with a criminal defendant who said his Sixth Amendment rights were violated at a trial during which he was convicted of murder.
The issue is whether Hemphill “opened the door” at his trial to the use of evidence that would normally be barred by the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause (view previous coverage).
The Supreme Court will hear argument on Tuesday in an important case on the rights of criminal defendants under the Sixth Amendment’s confrontation clause. Specifically, the court will determine in Hemphill v.
In state court news, the Supreme Court of Maryland rifles through the evidence and shoots down firearm experts' striking claims that they can link a certain bullet to a particular gun. Henceforth, such claims will trigger significant scrutiny, and, if an expert that tries to claim more than what the evidence supports, courts should rightfully go ballistic. New trial ordered.
Evidence of child pornography found on a defendant’s phone must be suppressed and his plea vacated because the application for the search warrant didn’t adequately establish probable cause, the First Circuit said (view full
In a case that could have easily sprung from the wild imagination of law school hypotheticals, the Fifth Circuit holds that hitching a ride across the border in a car with 283 pounds of marijuana, is not, strictly speaking, possessing marijuana. The two men could really have been hitchhikers. Mere presence in the area where the drugs are found is not a crime. Convictions vacated. Dissent: Shut the front door. Two hundred. Eighty-three. Pounds.