This week the United States Supreme Court will oral argument on Tuesday in Currier v. Virginia, No. 16-1348 and City of Hays v. Vogt, No. 16-1495. On Wednesday, the Court will here arguments in Rosales-Mireles v. United States, No. 16-9493 and Dahda v. United States, No. 17-43.
The issue in Currier is “[w]hether a defendant who consents to severance of multiple charges into sequential trials loses his right under the double jeopardy clause to the issue-preclusive effect of an acquittal.” A preview of the oral argument is available at here.
The Court will consider use of compelled statements in City of Hays: “[w]hether the Fifth Amendment is violated when statements are used at a probable cause hearing but not at a criminal trial. A preview of the argument is available here.
In Rosales-Mireles, the Court will consider if unpreserved sentencing guideline errors should be corrected under plain error: “[w]hether, in order to meet the standard for plain error review set forth by the Supreme Court in United States v. Olano that “[t]he Court of Appeals should correct a plain forfeited error affecting substantial rights if the error ‘seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings,’” it is necessary, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit required, that the error be one that “would shock the conscience of the common man, serve as a powerful indictment against our system of justice, or seriously call into question the competence or integrity of the district judge.” A preview of the argument is available here.
Finally, the Court will decide a statutory exclusionary rule issue in Dahda: " [w]hether Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510–2520, requires suppression of evidence obtained pursuant to a wiretap order that is facially insufficient because the order exceeds the judge's territorial jurisdiction." A preview of the argument is available here.