Justice Kagan continued in relevant part: Arizona law enforcement officers found petitioner Jason Smith with a large quantity of what appeared to be drugs and drug-related items. Smith was charged with various drug offenses, and the State sent the seized items to a...
On June 21, 2024, the United States Supreme Court decided the case of Smith v. Arizona. The principal issue concerned the admissibility of an expert’s testimony in which he refers to a non-testifying analyst’s conclusions. Justice Kagan wrote for the five-Justice...
The Court concluded with the following in relevant part: And the Court’s conclusion in Bruen that regulations like the surety laws are not a proper historical analogue for a broad gun licensing regime does not mean that they cannot be an appropriate analogue for a...
The Chief Justice continued in relevant part: Section 922(g)(8) restricts gun use to check demonstrated threats of physical violence, just as the surety and going armed laws do. Unlike the regulation struck down in Bruen, Section 922(g)(8) does not broadly restrict...
Chief Justice Roberts continued in relevant part: The Court reviewed the history of American gun laws extensively in Heller and Bruen. At common law people were barred from misusing weapons to harm or menace others. Such conduct was often addressed through ordinary...
The Court continued in relevant part: The right to keep and bear arms is among the “fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty.” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 2 U.S. 742, 778. That right, however, “is not unlimited,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554...
On June 21, 2024, the United States Supreme Court decided the case of U.S. v. Rahimi. The principal issue before the Court concerned when a domestic violence restraining order is a basis to prohibit firearm possession. Chief Justice Roberts wrote for the 8-1 majority...
The 6-3 majority concluded with the following in relevant part: Diaz’s counterarguments are unpersuasive. She first argues that Agent Flood functionally stated an opinion about whether she knowingly transported drugs when he opined that most couriers know that they...
Justice Thomas continued in relevant part: Expert testimony that “most people” in a group have a particular mental state is not an opinion about “the defendant” and thus does not violate Rule 704(b). Federal Rule of Evidence 704(a) sets out a general rule that “an...
On June 20, 2024, the United States Supreme Court decided the case of Delilah Diaz v. United States. The principal issue concerned the admissibility of opinion evidence concerning “most people’s” mental state. Justice Thomas wrote for the 6-3 majority in relevant...
