Brief | Casebriefs

Texas v. McCullough

Citation475 U.S. 134, 106 S. Ct. 976, 89 L. Ed. 2d 104; 1986 U.S.

Brief Fact Summary. The defendant, Sanford James McCullough (the “defendant”), was tried and convicted before a jury, receiving a 20-year sentence. Upon successfully setting aside the first verdict, the defendant was reconvicted with additional evidence at retrial, leading the judge to impose a 50-year sentence.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. A sentencing judge may lengthen a sentence upon retrial, absent any proof of vindictiveness, as long as the judge factually supports the increase.
Continue reading “Texas v. McCullough”

United States v. Booker

CitationUnited States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S. Ct. 738, 160 L. Ed. 2d 621, 2005 U.S. LEXIS 628, 73 U.S.L.W. 4056, 18 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 70 (U.S. Jan. 12, 2005)

Brief Fact Summary. This opinion comes from the consolidation of two cases dealing with sentencing enhancement.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. It is in violation of the Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury to allow a judge to enhance a sentence using facts not reviewed by the jury.
Continue reading “United States v. Booker”

North Carolina v. Pearce

Citation395 U.S. 711, 89 S. Ct. 2072, 23 L. Ed. 2d 656, 1969 U.S.

Brief Fact Summary. The defendants, Clifton Pearce (“Mr. Pearce”) and William Rice (“Mr. Rice”) (collectively referred to as the “defendants”), successfully overturned initial convictions only to be reconvicted with longer sentences without credit for time served.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. Credit for time served must be applied under the double jeopardy provision of the United States Constitution (“Constitution”), and due process prohibits the imposition of a harsher sentence on a retrial.
Continue reading “North Carolina v. Pearce”

Lockhart v. Nelson

CitationLockhart v. Nelson, 488 U.S. 33, 109 S. Ct. 285, 102 L. Ed. 2d 265, 1988 U.S. LEXIS 5180, 57 U.S.L.W. 4007 (U.S. Nov. 14, 1988)

Brief Fact Summary. After being convicted under a habitual offender statute, respondent sought to have his sentence shortened because he was part of the basis for his sentence was on a conviction of which he had been pardoned.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. Retrial is not permitted when a defendant is sentenced by the use of a nullified conviction, because that does not lend toward a determination of the facts of the matter.
Continue reading “Lockhart v. Nelson”

Heath v. Alabama

CitationHeath v. Ala., 474 U.S. 82, 106 S. Ct. 433, 88 L. Ed. 2d 387, 1985 U.S. LEXIS 143, 54 U.S.L.W. 4016 (U.S. Dec. 3, 1985)

Brief Fact Summary. Petitioner, Heath, sought a writ of certiorari after being convicted in Alabama on charges that he had already been convicted of in Georgia.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. Successive prosecutions are barred by the Double Jeopardy clause only if the two offenses for which the defendant is prosecuted are actually the same offense.
Continue reading “Heath v. Alabama”

Williams v. New York

Citation337 U.S. 241, 69 S. Ct. 1079, 93 L. Ed. 1337 (1949)

Brief Fact Summary. Defendant appealed from a death sentence, when it was determined by evidence that had been considered of his criminal record, because he was not given the opportunity for cross-examination.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. Whether a defendant’s rights to due process have been violated when his criminal record is used against him as a means of enhancing his sentence.
Continue reading “Williams v. New York”

Illinois v. Somerville

CitationIllinois v. Somerville, 410 U.S. 458, 93 S. Ct. 1066, 35 L. Ed. 2d 425, 1973 U.S. LEXIS 103 (U.S. Feb. 27, 1973)

Brief Fact Summary. After a mistrial was declared, against defendant’s objections, defendant was later indicted and tried for the same crime. From conviction, defendant appealed, alleging the subsequent indictment was a violation of double jeopardy.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. Double Jeopardy only attaches after a judgment has been rendered.
Continue reading “Illinois v. Somerville”

Oregon v. Kennedy

CitationOregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667, 102 S. Ct. 2083, 72 L. Ed. 2d 416, 1982 U.S. LEXIS 111, 50 U.S.L.W. 4544 (U.S. May 24, 1982)

Brief Fact Summary. Kennedy brought appeal, grounded in Double Jeopardy, after being twice tried after an initial mistrial when the prosecutor in the case against him called a “crook.”

Synopsis of Rule of Law. A defendant may only invoke Double Jeopardy in a subsequent attempt to try him for the same offense when he can demonstrate prosecutorial provocation of a prior mistrial.
Continue reading “Oregon v. Kennedy”

United States v. Scott

CitationUnited States v. Scott, 437 U.S. 82, 98 S. Ct. 2187, 57 L. Ed. 2d 65, 1978 U.S. LEXIS 109 (U.S. June 14, 1978)

Brief Fact Summary. Respondent moved for dismissal of two counts of an indictment against him on the grounds that he had been prejudiced by preindictment delay.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. Double Jeopardy is not an absolute bar to subsequent prosecution.
Continue reading “United States v. Scott”

Griffin v. California

CitationGriffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 85 S. Ct. 1229, 14 L. Ed. 2d 106, 1965 U.S. LEXIS 1346, 5 Ohio Misc. 127, 32 Ohio Op. 2d 437 (U.S. Apr. 28, 1965)

Brief Fact Summary. Petitioner appealed after being convicted when the trial judge gave a jury instruction that failure to testify should be construed against him.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. The fifth Amendment, as incorporated against the states in the Fourteenth Amendment, forbids comment on the accused’s silence as evidence of guilt.
Continue reading “Griffin v. California”

Darden v. Wainwright

CitationDarden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168, 106 S. Ct. 2464, 91 L. Ed. 2d 144, 1986 U.S. LEXIS 113, 54 U.S.L.W. 4734 (U.S. June 23, 1986)

Brief Fact Summary. After committing a heinous crime, Darden was convicted of murder, robbery and assault with intent to kill. Petitioner brought appeal, on the grounds that statements made in the prosecution’s closing argument prejudiced his case.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. Comments allowed in a closing argument cannot be considered reversible error when the defense has an opportunity to rebut.
Continue reading “Darden v. Wainwright”

Batson v. Kentucky

Citation476 U.S. 79, 106 S. Ct. 1712, 90 L. Ed. 2d 69 (1986)

Brief Fact Summary. This appeal was brought after the State used peremptory challenges to strike all black jurors from the trial of a black man.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. Peremptory challenges are subject to the Equal Protection Clause.
Continue reading “Batson v. Kentucky”

Illinois v. Allen

CitationIllinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 90 S. Ct. 1057, 25 L. Ed. 2d 353, 1970 U.S. LEXIS 55, 51 Ohio Op. 2d 163 (U.S. Mar. 31, 1970)

Brief Fact Summary. Defendant, Allen, appealed from a conviction he received after he was barred from his own trial for disrupting the judicial process.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. While there is a Sixth Amendment right to be present at one’s trial, that right is not absolute.
Continue reading “Illinois v. Allen”

In re United States

CitationIn re United States, 665 F. Supp. 2d 1210, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100630 (D. Or. June 19, 2009)

Brief Fact Summary. The government brought a writ of mandamus to the Seventh Circuit after a district court judge refused to dismiss a charge the government chose not to prosecute.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. It is a violation of the separation of powers for a Judge to assume a prosecutorial role.
Continue reading “In re United States”

Taylor v. Louisiana

CitationTaylor v. Louisiana, 2004 U.S. LEXIS 34, 540 U.S. 1103, 124 S. Ct. 1036, 157 L. Ed. 2d 886, 72 U.S.L.W. 3446 (U.S. Jan. 12, 2004)

Brief Fact Summary. Taylor appealed from conviction when his jury did not include any women, on the basis that Art. 402 of the Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure, which precluded women from jury service, was unconstitutional.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. Jury pools, from which juries are selected, should represent an accurate cross-section of the community.
Continue reading “Taylor v. Louisiana”

Hamer v. United States

CitationHamer v. United States, 2009 U.S. LEXIS 6742, 558 U.S. 912, 130 S. Ct. 291, 175 L. Ed. 2d 195, 78 U.S.L.W. 3179 (U.S. Oct. 5, 2009)

Brief Fact Summary. Defendant brought this appeal after she was denied the right to participate in various steps of jury selection.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. It is not unconstitutional to deprive a defendant from participation in every step of voir dire.
Continue reading “Hamer v. United States”

United States v. Ruiz

CitationUnited States v. Ruiz, 536 U.S. 622, 122 S. Ct. 2450, 153 L. Ed. 2d 586, 2002 U.S. LEXIS 4650, 70 U.S.L.W. 4677, 2002 Cal. Daily Op. Service 5602, 2002 Daily Journal DAR 7067, 15 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 454 (U.S. June 24, 2002)

Brief Fact Summary. When Ruiz’s sentence was vacated because she refused to waive her rights to impeachment evidence, the government brought appeal on the grounds that its plea bargaining process was not unconstitutional.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. While the Fifth and Sixth Amendments require that a defendant receive exculpatory evidence at trial, a defendant may waive their right to this information in a plea agreement.
Continue reading “United States v. Ruiz”

Santobello v. New York

CitationSantobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 92 S. Ct. 495, 30 L. Ed. 2d 427, 1971 U.S. LEXIS 1 (U.S. Dec. 20, 1971)

Brief Fact Summary. Petitioner brought appeal after he made a plea bargain and was later sentenced to a maximum sentence.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. Plea bargains are considered an important part of the judicial process and should not be dismissed.
Continue reading “Santobello v. New York”

Newman v. United States

CitationNewman v. United States, 382 F.2d 479, 1967 U.S. App. LEXIS 5454, 127 U.S. App. D.C. 263 (D.C. Cir. July 31, 1967)

Brief Fact Summary. After appellant, Newman, was not extended the same plea offer that his co-defendant was, he brought appeal claiming he had been denied due process, equal standing and equal protection.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. It is not in the province of the Court to tell the attorney general how to bring about its charges of different defendants.
Continue reading “Newman v. United States”

Bordenkircher v. Hayes

CitationBordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 98 S. Ct. 663, 54 L. Ed. 2d 604, 1978 U.S. LEXIS 56 (U.S. Jan. 18, 1978)

Brief Fact Summary. Hayes was indicted on charges of forgery. He and his counsel met with the prosecutor who offered a lesser sentence if he pled guilty. Hayes decided not to plead guilty and the prosecutor asked that he be tried under the Kentucky Habitual Criminal Act. Hayes was found guilty and sentenced to life as a habitual offender. He appealed from this judgment.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. It is not vindictive prosecution to charge someone with something they are guilty of.
Continue reading “Bordenkircher v. Hayes”

United States V. Lovasco

CitationUnited States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783, 97 S. Ct. 2044, 52 L. Ed. 2d 752, 1977 U.S. LEXIS 107 (U.S. June 9, 1977)

Brief Fact Summary. Respondent, Lovasco, brought this action when he was indicted eighteen (18) months after the offenses of his indictment occurred.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. A court must apply a balancing test and consider not only the prejudice to the defendant but also the governmental interests that are being served when there is a delay in indictment.
Continue reading “United States V. Lovasco”

Schaffer v. United States

CitationSchaffer v. United States, 362 U.S. 511, 80 S. Ct. 945, 4 L. Ed. 2d 921, 1960 U.S. LEXIS 1144 (U.S. May 16, 1960)

Brief Fact Summary. After being arrested and indicted on charges of transportation in interstate commerce of stolen goods, along with three other groups of individuals, respondents sought to have their trial severed from the rest.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. When Joinder is proper, in the case of multiple defendants all guilty of the same offense, or of separate offenses all arising out of the same fact pattern, it is incumbent upon a defendant to bear the burden of proving they will be prejudiced by continuing the trial.
Continue reading “Schaffer v. United States”