WPC6 l|61ݏ51ZFO9:-Z3&{T;_.`]XXJmݷ-}vN'Ĕwu$zcA`U/#@gD^530ͰoP9UMߵaS>r%$dI,:2nO|#=xy,ԫҫd|6h`E?>B>c'9#M:w8}8<7{vc|%[+FnM|-Ғ5BԻ~osh i zRdn;^GK6?\#Pù hGg$q^l8w#U&NK % 0Y 0U wM 4Q e t mv 0 0j 0) 0 0 0B 0 0 0% 0 0 0\ 0 0 0? 0 0c 0 0 0n 0 0 0Z 0 0 0NU>U@U* 0> B- 0 0 0> 0 0! 0" 0# 0u$ 0W% 09& 0& 02' 0' 0:( 0Y-) 0_) 0 ) 0* 0q, B*w. D/. D+. 0. D/1 001 061 042 0:<3 0^v3 0<3 1e4U6u4 1u4 72 5 0cR5 0N5U26UD565656by6y6"66666666666666666666*6666666666666^ 6\\SOLAR\BONNIE_HP_4050,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX(1$vOXXUSUS.,*+ (_2623  ..gg::i+003|xU*D+D (_25   ," <DL,23  ..," <DL,   *5+5 (_24  ) <DL)23  ..) <DL)  *2+2 (_23 ` &<<DL&23  ..&<<DL& ` */+/ (_22  #DL#23  ..#DL#  *,+, (_21   DL 23  .. DL  *)+) (_20 h DDL23  ..DDL h *&+& (_19  L23  ..L  *#+# (_18   L23  .. L  *>> (_17  2( 4 <DL223  Ԁ2( 4 <DL2  *DD (_16   ," <DL,23  Ԁ," <DL,   *55 (_15  ) <DL)23  Ԁ) <DL)  *22 (_14 ` &<<DL&23  Ԁ&<<DL& ` *// (_13  #DL#23  Ԁ#DL#  *,, (_12   DL 23  Ԁ DL  *)) (_11 h DDL23  ԀDDL h *&& (_10  L23  ԀL  (## &_9   L23  Ԁ L  (>> &_8  2( 4 <DL223  2( 4 <DL2  (DD &_7   ," <DL,23  ," <DL,   (55 &_6  ) <DL)23  ) <DL)  (22 &_5 ` &<<DL&23  &<<DL& ` (// &_4  #DL#23  #DL#  (,, &_3   DL 23   DL  ()) &_2 h DDL23  DDL h (&& &_1  L23  L  &## $_   L23   L  \  `&Times New Roman(A Z(Times New Roman %2A`Arial0AA.Normal  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  )Hairline d<AA:Definition T  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  <AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(hh&H1  5+ ` hp x 5      5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H2  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H3  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H4  5+ ` hp x 5 XXX 5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H5  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H6  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  2DD0Address  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKJ<6X9`(Courier NewKS&\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KJ<6X9`(Courier NewKS&\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted  /%  ,Kk %#/KJ<6X9`(Courier NewKS&\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/  <:zBottom of 7?(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?(%2A`Arial?  S&\  `&Times New RomanS7@(X75+ ` hp x 5  &  d d>)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For7B(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?(%2A`Arial?  S&\  `&Times New RomanS7@(X75+ ` hp x 5  >)2dxd0KS.SampleKJ<6X9`(Courier NewKS&\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKJ<6X9`(Courier NewKS&\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB   35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.<6X9`(Courier New3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)Ki)(;3$2#  0  .3  0  (O$-z ZRockwell 174Z,Bookman Old Style - -     mailto:jboc@fdap.orgoI< !CXXUSUS.,  _   CFIRSTDISTRICTAPPELLATEPROJECT  @@"TRAININGSEMINAR % @@"#Ck#January30,2010 J pC@@q q KEYPENDINGCASESINTHE ,  @@ UNITEDSTATESSUPREMECOURT 5  @@ #CpY#J.BradleyOConnellOCOR QO   @@> > FIRSTDISTRICTAPPELLATEPROJECT : TRAININGSEMINAR#O QORh#OR QO  _@ZZ"@@VV"#O QOR#O= OJanuary30,2010  Y # O=I#'@*#'C'ä##C'C #PgE C  P@? PgETHEPERILSOFPENDENCY#PgE ?P@#PR;Q PgE#RQQPR;# 7  #CQR #xtvCSelectedCases     PendingBeforetheU.S.SupremeCourt#Cvxt#RQC  @*#CQR.#C2010Edition c #C#C  #C-#xtvC#Cvxt~#C'@*  @@00$J.BradleyOConnell &!v FirstDistrictAppellateProject K" AssistantDirector  p# #'# K(#33K  4i NO  5  jboc@fdap.org6 NO   7  Ԁ $  K(#33Ks    `     h      p #C#'CC  %! #C'C_ #'CC  8Cdd8  SUVINTRODUCTION   0  Thesematerialsbrieflynotethe QuestionsPresentedinseveralofthecriminalcases  ontheSupremeCourtsdocketthisTerm.However,thematerialsarenot  comprehensive.Forthemostpart,wehaveomittedcasesconcerningfederalcriminal  statutes,whichseemunlikelytohaveimplicationsforstatepractice. (#(# 0  Mostofthe QuestionPresentedsummariesareparaphrased.Thoseinquotations,   however,aretakendirectlyfromtherespectivecertioraripetitions.Formostofthe   cases,theimplicationsofthe QuestionsPresentedareselfevident.However,for    afew,wehaveincludedadditionalcomments. (#(#  MIRANDA  v    ImpliedWaiver n  0  _Berghuis_Ԁv._Thompkins_,081470{setforargument,March1,2010}d(#(# 0  QuestionPresented: WhetherthereisanimpliedwaiverofMirandarights,where Z thedefendantacknowledgedhisunderstandingtheadvisements,butneitherinvoked Y hisrightsnorexplicitlywaivedthem?Thestateframesthequestionaswhether T Mirandabars#C'C # anofficerfromattemptingtononcoercivelypersuadeadefendantto O cooperate'CCunderthosecircumstances?J(#(#  #C'Cݻ#Ԁ0  Comment: _Berghius_Ԁv._Thompkins_isoneofseveralSixthCircuithabeascases @ currentlybeforetheCourt.Consequently,theMirandaissuearisesinthecontextof ? the_AEDPA_Ԁstandardofreview(28U.S.C.2254(d)(1)),whichallowshabeasrelief : onlyifthestatecourtdecisionwascontrarytoorinvolvedanunreasonable 5 applicationofclearlyestablishedSupremeCourtprecedents.'CC0 (#(#   InvocationandProhibitiononReinitiationofQuestioning &"v   Marylandv._Shatzer_,08680{arguedOct.1,2009} $l  0  QuestionPresented :Whereasuspecthasinvokedhisrighttocounsel,does &b!" Edwardsv.Arizona,451U.S.477(1981),continuetobaranypolicereinitiationof 'a"# interrogation,eveniftherehasbeenanintervening #C'Cݍ#breakincustodyorasubstantial  (\#$ lapseintime(morethantwoyearsandsixmonths)?)W$%(#(# 0  ContentofAdvisements*M&'(#(#   Floridav.Powell,081175{arguedDec.7,2009} ,C() UV U U  __0  QuestionPresented: 󀀀Doesthelackofanexplicitadvisementontherighttocounsel   duringinterrogationrendertheMirandawarningsinsufficient,wherethe  advisementsdoexplicitlyrefertotherighttoconsultalawyer beforequestioning  andtherightto usethatconsultationright atanytime?(#(#  'CCCONFRONTATION    0  _Briscoe_Ԁv.Virginia,0711191{arguedJan.11,2010} (#(# 0  QuestionPresented: 󀀀Whethertheconfrontationclauseallowstheprosecutionto    introduceforensiclaboratoryresultsthroughacertificate,ratherthanlivetestimony,   ifstatelawalsogivesthedefensetherighttocalltheanalystasawitness? (#(# 0  Comment: _Briscoe_isafollowuptolastTerms54decisionin_Melendez_ԄDiazv. y  Massachusetts,#C'CL#'CCԀ129S.Ct.5257(2009),whichheldthatforensiclaboratoryresultsand x  otherforensicanalysesrepresent testimonialevidencesubjecttotheconfrontation s clause._Melendez_ԄDiazheldthat,uponobjection,theprosecutionmustpresentthat n forensicevidencethroughlivetestimonyoftheanalyst,ratherthanthrougha i certificateoraffidavit._Briscoe_presentsthequestionwhethertheprosecutionmay, d nonetheless,presentthatevidencethroughanaffidavitorcertificate,ifthedefenseis _ giventheopportunitytocalltheanalystasawitness.Z(#(# #C'C`# COUNSEL;PLEAADVICE ; IMMIGRATION  P   _Padilla_Ԁv.Kentucky,08651{arguedOct.13,2009} J 0  QuestionPresented: 󀀀Doescounselsfailuretoadviseadefendantofthemandatory @ deportationconsequencesofapleaconstituteineffectiveassistanceorotherwise ? providegroundsforwithdrawalofaplea,orisdeportationa collateralconsequence :  whichfallsoutsidecounselsdutytoadviseondirectconsequencesofaplea?5!(#(# 0  Comment: 󀀀Failure(byeitherthecourtordefensecounsel)toadviseanoncitizen +#{ defendantofmandatoryimmigrationconsequencesisoneofthemostcommonly *$z  litigatedgroundsforseekingwithdrawalofapleaorequivalentpostconvictionrelief. %%u ! Obviously,anySupremeCourtdecisiondeemingsuchadviceoutsidethescopeof  &p!" counselsdutiesundertheSixthAmendmentwouldhavegraveconsequencesfor 'k"# attemptstosetasideconvictionsinordertoavoiddeportation.(However,California (f#$ Pen.Code1016.5stillrequiresacourttoadviseadefendantoftheimmigration )a$% consequencesofaplea,andafailuretogivethoseadvisementsmaystillprovidea  *\%& basisforreliefunderthatstatuteifthedefendantcanmaketherequisiteprejudice +W&' showing.),R'((#(# Ї JURY;CROSSSECTION   0  _Berghuis_Ԁv.Smith,081402{arguedJan.20,2010}(#(# 0  QuestionPresented :WhethertheSixthCircuiterredinapplyinga comparative  disparitytestforassessmentofaprimafacieviolationofthejurycrosssection   requirementunderDurenv.Missouri,439U.S.362(1979)? (#(# 0  Comment: _Berghius_Ԁv.SmithisanotherSixthCircuithabeascase,andthestatehas   framedthecrosssectionissueintermsofthe_AEDPA_Ԁstandardofreview.  (#(#  DUEPROCESS     Notice;Vagueness }  0  _Skilling_Ԁv.UnitedStates,081394 {setforargument,March1,2010} s(#(# 0  Question Presented: Whetherafederalfraudstatutecriminalizingdeprivationof o  honestservices(18U.S.C.'CCԀ1346)isunconstitutionallyvagueandfailstoprovide n  fairnoticeoftheconductprohibited? i(#(# 0  Comment: _Skilling_concernsacorporatedefendantconvictedoffraudinthe_Enron_ a scandal.Itisoneofseveralcertgrantedcasesconcerningthe honestservicesfraud ` statute.Althoughthatstatuteisprimarilyusedinfederalwhitecollarcrime [ prosecutions,thedueprocessnoticeissuescouldpotentially haveimplicationsfor V defendantsconvictedundervariousCaliforniastatuteswhicharguablysufferfrom U similarproblemsofvaguenessanduncertainbreadth. #C'C,#'CCP(#(#   PretrialPublicityandJurorPrejudice H  0  _Skilling_Ԁv.UnitedStates,081394 {setforargument,March1,2010}#C'CS0#'CC >"(#(# 0  QuestionPresented: _Skilling_alsoposesadistinctjuryprejudicequestionarisingout :$  ofthe_Enron_ԀexecutivestrialinHouston:#C'C݃1#'CC Whenapresumptionofjuryprejudice 9% ! arisesbecauseofthewidespreadcommunityimpactofthedefendant'salleged 4&!" conductandmassive,inflammatorypretrialpublicity,whetherthegovernmentmay /'"# rebutthepresumptionofprejudice,and,ifso,whetherthegovernmentmustprove *(z#$ beyondareasonabledoubtthatnojurorwasactuallyprejudiced#C'C2#(C.#C(4#'CC%)u$%(#(#  ,f'(  CRUELANDUNUSUALPUNISHMENT;MINORS   0  Grahamv.Florida,087412(#(# 0  Sullivanv.Florida,087621{eacharguedNov.9,2009}(#(# 0  QuestionsPresented: Whetherlifewithoutpossibilityofparolesentencesfornon   homicidecrimescommittedbyminorsviolatetheEighthAmendmentbaroncruel   andunusualpunishment? (#(# 0  Comments: Grahamwasconvictedofattemptedarmedrobberyatage16,and    Sullivanwasconvictedofsexualbatteryatage13.InSullivan,however,reviewof   themeritsoftheEighthAmendmentclaimmaybecomplicatedbystateprocedural   defaultissues.~ (#(#  EXPOSTFACTO;SEXOFFENDERREGISTRATION  t  0  Carrv.UnitedStates,081341{setforargument,Feb.24,2010}l(#(# 0  QuestionPresented: Whethertheexpostfactoclausebarsprosecutionundera b federalsexoffenderregistrationstatute,whereboththeunderlyingoffensetriggering a theregistrationdutyandtherequisitetravelin interstatecommerceoccurredprior \ totheenactmentoftheregistrationlaw?W(#(# #C'C5# SECONDAMENDMENT;RIGHTTOBEARARMS  M   McDonaldv.CityofChicago,081521{setforargument,March2,2010} E 0  QuestionPresented: IstheSecondAmendmentrighttokeepandbeararms ; applicabletothestatesvia incorporationthroughtheFourteenthAmendment?: (#(# 0  Comment :DistrictofColumbiav.Heller,128S.Ct.2783(2008),heldthatthe 0" SecondAmendmentconfersanindividualrighttobeararms(repudiatingthelong /# heldviewthattheAmendmentsimplyrecognizedtherighttobeararmsinastate *$z  militia,suchasthecontemporaryNationalGuard).McDonaldpresentsacrucial %%u ! questionleftopeninHeller!whethertheSecondAmendmentrestrictsonlythe  &p!" federalgovernmentsauthoritytolimitthatrightoralsoappliesagainstthestatesvia 'k"# theFourteenthAmendment.PastSupremeCourtprecedentshavetreatedtheSecond (f#$ AmendmentasoneofthefewprovisionsoftheBillofRights,whichisnot )a$%  incorporatedthroughtheFourteenthAmendmentand,therefore,isnotbindingon  *\%& thestates.(Ofcourse,eveniftheSupremeCourtrulesotherwiseinMcDonaldand +W&' findstheSecondAmendmentapplicabletothestates,thatholdingwouldprobablynot ,R'( imperilCaliforniasleadinggunpossessionlaws,suchasPen.Code12021.The  HelleropinionexplicitlyrecognizedthattheSecondAmendmentdoesnotbar  restrictionsonpossessionoffirearmsbyfelonsormentallyillpersons,orprohibitions  oncertain dangerousandunusualweapons(acategorywhichpresumablyincludes  machinegunsandthelike).(#(# 'CC #C'CeC#FEDERALHABEASCORPUSPROCEDURE      _AEDPA_ԀStatuteofLimitations    0   Hollandv.Florida,095327{setforargumentMarch1,2010} (#(#  0  QuestionPresented: 󀀀Whether grossnegligencebycounselinthelatefilingofa x  federalhabeaspetitionmayqualifyasan exceptionalcircumstancewarranting w  equitabletollingof_AEDPA_Ԁstatuteoflimitations? r (#(# 0  _AEDPA_ԀStandardofReview j(#(# 0  See'CC_Berghuis_Ԁv._Thompkins_,081470#C'CݠF#{discussedunder MIRANDA} b(#(# 0  See_Berghuis_Ԁv.Smith,081402 {discussedunder JURY;CROSSSECTION} ](#(# 0  Comment: Asdiscussedinthepreviousentries,boththesecasesarisingfromthe Y SixthCircuitinvolvethe28U.S.C.2254(d)(1)standard,allowinghabeasrelief X onlyifthestatedecisionwas contrarytoorrepresentedan unreasonable S applicationof clearlyestablishedU.S.SupremeCourtprecedents.N(#(# 0  SuccessivePetitions D(#(# 0  _Magwood_Ԁv._Culliver_ , 09158{setforargumentMarch24,2010}< (#(# 0  QuestionPresented: Whenapersonis_resentenced_Ԁafterhavingobtainedfederal 6" habeasrelieffromanearliersentence,isaclaiminafederalhabeaspetition 5# challengingthatnewsentencingjudgmentasecondorsuccessiveclaimunder28 0$  U.S.C.2244(b)ifthepetitionercouldhavechallengedhispreviouslyimposed(but +%{ ! nowvacated)sentenceonthesameconstitutionalgrounds?&&v!"(#(#