Review was granted to decide whether supervisory prosecutors have absolute immunity against liability in a civil rights lawsuit for violating their constitutional duty under Giglio v United States, 405 US 150 (1972), to establish procedures to ensure that all relevant information in criminal cases is shared with every lawyer within the office who deals with the case.

The Court granted review to decide whether the Second Circuit Court of Appeals erred in striking down the FCC's determination that the broadcast of vulgar expletives may violate federal restrictions on the broadcast of “any obscene, indecent, or profane language,” where the use of the expletives was an isolated incident.

The question presented is whether a state forensic analyst's laboratory report prepared for use in a criminal prosecution is “testimonial” evidence pursuant to Crawford v Washington, 541 US 36 (2004).

The Court will decide whether, in reviewing a due process challenge to jury instructions in a habeas petition, the federal courts must accept the state court determination that the instructions fully and correctly set out state law governing accomplice liability, and whether it was an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law to conclude that there was no reasonable likelihood that the jury misapplied the instructions so as to relieve the prosecution of the burden of proving all elements of a crime.

The Court granted review on the issue of whether the Sixth Amendment as interpreted in Blakely v Washington, 542 US 466 (2004), requires that facts (other than prior convictions) necessary to imposing consecutive sentences be found by a jury or admitted by the defendant.

The Court will decide whether the granting of an out-of-time appeal by the state court started the habeas limitations period anew.

The Court granted review on the issue of whether the Fourth Amendment requires that evidence found during a search incident to arrest be suppressed when the arresting officer conducted the arrest and search in sole reliance upon facially credible but erroneous information negligently provided by another officer. Case below: 492 F3d 1212 (CA11, 2007).

Send a message to Criminal Defense Resource Center

State Appellate Defender Office
Copyright © 2008