Articles Posted in U.S. Supreme Court

by

David Badertscher
Legal experts and prosecutors are quite concerned about possible results of the June 25, 2009 U.S. Supreme Court decision Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts 07-591. In this decision the Court has ruled that forensic analysts conducting tests must be in court to testify about their test results and that lab sheets that identify a substance as a narcotic, or breath test printouts describing a suspect’s blood-alcohol level are no longer to be considered as sufficient evidence. A person is now required to be in court to talk about the test results. The basic question the Supreme Court addressed in this opinion was: “Is a state forensic analyst’s laboratory report prepared for use in a criminal prosecution “testimonial” evidence subject to the demands of the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause as set forth in Crawford v. Washington?”* In its ruling the Supreme Court answered, yes.
_________________________ *The above quote was taken from discussion of this opinion in the U.S. Supreme Court Oyez website at. http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2008/2008_07_591 . This site also includes links to the text of the opinion as well at to the Syllabus, dissent, concurrance, and argument. For additional information see discussion in a July 15, 2009 Washington Post article by Tom Jackman, and follow the link on the U.S. Supreme Court website.

by

To view the full-text of cases you must sign in to FindLaw.com. All summaries are produced by Findlaw.

June 1, 2009.

CIVIL PROCEDURE, INJURY AND TORT LAW, PER CURIAM, TRANSPORTATION CSX Transp., Inc. v. Hensley, No. 08-1034 In an action brought under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, based on Plaintiff’s fear of developing cancer due to asbestos exposure, judgment for Plaintiff is reversed where the trial court denied an instruction that Plaintiff must have a “genuine and serious fear” to recover damages, because that instruction was required by the Court’s prior decision in Ayers v. Norfolk & Western R. Co., 538 U.S. 135 (2003). Read more…

Continue reading

by

To view the full-text of cases you must sign in to FindLaw.com. All summaries are produced by Findlaw.

May 26, 2009.

CIVIL RIGHTS, CRIMINAL LAW & PROCEDURE, GOVERNMENT LAW, LABOR & EMPLOYMENT LAW Haywood v. Drown, No. 07-10374 In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 action by a prisoner, judgment for Defendant-Officers is reversed where Correction Law section 24, as applied to Section 1983 claims, violates the Supremacy Clause, because New York’s policy of shielding correctional officers from liability for conduct performed in the scope of their employment is contrary to Congress’s judgment that all persons who violate federal rights while acting under color of state law shall be held liable for damages.

Continue reading

by

To view the full-text of cases you must sign in to FindLaw.com. All summaries are produced by Findlaw.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, GOVERNMENT BENEFITS, MILITARY LAW Shinseki v. Sanders, No. 07-1209 In an application for veterans’ disability benefits, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s holding that the Department of Veterans Affairs erred in denying benefits is reversed, where the Federal Circuit’s “harmless-error” framework conflicts with 38 U.S.C. section 7261(b)(2)’s requirement that the Veterans Court take “due account of the rule of prejudicial error.”

CIVIL PROCEDURE, DISPUTE RESOLUTION & ARBITRATION, GOVERNMENT LAW, INJURY AND TORT LAW, INTERNATIONAL LAW, JUDGMENT ENFORCEMENT Ministry of Def. v. Elahi, No. 07-615 In an action seeking to attach a judgment obtained by Iran, the District Court’s order permitting the attachment is reversed, where Plaintiff could not attach the judgment because he waived his right to do so, as the U.S. paid Plaintiff as partial compensation for his judgment against Iran under the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act

Continue reading

by

Harbison v. Bell, Warden

No. 07-8521

“In reversing a 6th Circuit opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court has found that a certificate of appealability is not required to appeal a denial of federally appointed counsel, and that federally appointed counsel may represent clients in state clemency proceedings and be compensated for that representation. Following Tennessee state courts’ rejection of Petitioner’s conviction and death penalty challenges, a federal public defender had been appointed to represent him in a habeas petition. Upon denial of that petition, counsel sought to continue representing Petitioner in state clemency proceedings since Tennessee does not provide counsel for such proceedings. The District Court had denied the motion, and the 6th Circuit had affirmed.”

Continue reading
Contact Information
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2016 – 2024, David Badertscher
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design