U. S. Supreme Court, January, 2009, Federal Case law

Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!

Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!

Federal Courts - U. S. Supreme Court - January 13 - January 15, 2009

Chambers v. United States, No. 06-11206, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, January 13, 2009, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: A felon's prior conviction for failing to report for weekend confinement under 720 ILCS 5/31-6(a) (2008) was not a form of "escape from a penal institution" qualifying as a "violent felony" under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C.S. ? 924(e), in sentencing, thus, an affirmance of his sentence was reversed.

Search Cases for Free

Jimenez v. Quarterman, No. 07-6984, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, January 13, 2009, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: The lower court erred in denying a state inmate a certificate of appealability on a district court's dismissal of his federal habeas petition where, under the plain meaning of 28 U.S.C.S. ? 2244(d)(1)(A), the date that his out-of-time appeal became final was the controlling date for purposes of determining the timeliness of the petition.

Search Cases for Free

Herring v. United States, No. 07-513, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, January 14, 2009, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: The lower court concluded that the error in failing to update the computer database to reflect the recall of the arrest warrant was negligent, not reckless or deliberate. That negligent error was not enough, by itself to require the extreme sanction of exclusion under the. Assuming that aviolation occurred when defendant was arrested on the recalled arrest warrant, the exclusionary rule did not apply as the error that occurred arose from nonrecurring and attenuated negligence. It was far removed from the core concerns that led to the exclusionary rule's adoption. To trigger the exclusionary rule, police conduct had to be sufficiently deliberate such that exclusion could meaningfully deter it, and sufficiently culpable that such deterrence was worth the price paid by the justice system. In this case, the miscommunications were not routine or widespread; they were not so objectively culpable as to require exclusion.

Search Cases for Free

Oregon v. Ice, No. 07-901, SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, January 14, 2009, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Imposition of consecutive sentences for multiple offenses, based on facts found by court rather than jury under Or. Rev. Stat. ? 137.123, did not violate constitutional right to jury trial, since jury historically played no role in determining consecutive or concurrent sentences and state had sovereign authority to administer its penal system.

Search Cases for Free

Callahan v. Alabama, No. 08-8186 (08A614)., SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, January 15, 2009, Decided
View this case - free

Search Cases for Free

Communities Portal