Justice Gorsuch concluded with the following in relevant part: Amicus next turns to the Double Jeopardy Clause, which permits a judge to look into a defendant’s past conduct to ask whether the government has charged a defendant for the same crime a second time. While...
The United States Supreme Court majority continued in relevant part: To answer such questions, a court will sometimes consult the Shepard documents in a case, which include judicial records, plea agreements, and colloquies between a judge and the defendant. See...
Justice Gorsuch continued in relevant part: The government concedes what all of this means for Mr. Erlinger. To trigger ACCA’s mandatory minimum, the government had to prove, among other things, that his three predicate convictions were “committed on occasions...
The Supreme Court majority continued in relevant part: On appeal, the government confessed error. Pointing to this Court’s recent decision in Wooden v. United States, 595 U. S. 360, which acknowledged that an ACCA “occasions inquiry” can be intensely factual in...
On June 21, 2024, the United States Supreme Court decided the case of Erlinger v. United States. The principal issue concerned whether a jury is required to determine if prior offenses were committed on separated occasions for a court to impose enhanced penalties....
The Court concluded with the following in relevant part: Truth is everything when it comes to the kind of basis testimony presented here. If an expert conveys an out-of-court statement in support of his opinion, and the statement supports that opinion only if true,...
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...