Criminal Law Blog
Sexual Morality and Jury Service (Part 3)
Justice Alito continued: Second, the court concluded that the jurors had been dismissed, not based on their religious status, but based on their religious beliefs. And this distinction, it said, made all the difference because, in its view, while dismissals based on a...
Sexual Morality and Jury Service (Part 2)
Justice Alito continued: In response to this question, some potential jurors raised their hands, and Finney’s lawyer then questioned them individually. During this phase of voir dire, Juror 4, a pastor’s wife, stated that “homosexuality, according to the Bible, is a...
Sexual Morality and Jury Service (Part 1)
On February 20, 2024, The United States Supreme Court denied a petition for a writ of certiorari in the case of Missouri Department of Corrections v. Jean Finney. Justice Alito added the following analysis to the denial. I agree that we should not grant certiorari in...
Inconsistent Verdicts and Double (Part 2)
The Court concluded with the following in relevant part: Our “cases have defined an acquittal to encompass any ruling that the prosecution’s proof is insufficient to establish criminal liability for an offense.” Evans v. Michigan, 568 U. S. 313, 318. Once rendered, a...
Inconsistent Verdicts and Double (Part 1)
On February 21, 2024, a unanimous United States Supreme Court decided the case of Mcelrath v. Georgia. The principal issue concerned whether a jury verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity constituted an acquittal for double jeopardy purposes notwithstanding its...
Facebook and the Wiretap Statute (Part 5)
The Court continued in relevant part: The wiretap statutes are infused with constitutional considerations, as identified in Berger and Katz. The Constitution sets the benchmark for a reasonable search: the use of a warrant based on probable cause. When a lesser...
Facebook and the Wiretap Statute (Part 4)
Chief Justice Rabner continued in relevant part: The Court next considers whether the requests for information in this appeal are subject to the enhanced privacy protections of the wiretap acts. The State argues the wiretap acts do not apply because the stored...
Facebook and the Wiretap Statute (Part 3)
The New Jersey Supreme Court continued in relevant part: Federal law authorizes government entities to require disclosure of a communication “that is in electronic storage” for 180 days or less pursuant to a warrant, or that “has been in electronic storage” for more...
Facebook and the Wiretap Statute (Part 2)
Chief Justice Rabner continued in relevant part: Based on the language and structure of the relevant statutes, the State’s request for information from users’ accounts invokes heightened privacy protections. The nearly contemporaneous acquisition of electronic...
Facebook and the Wiretap Statute (Part 1)
On June 29, 2023, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided the consolidated Mercer and Atlantic County cases of Facebook v. State of New Jersey. The principal issue before the Court concerned whether a wiretap order was required to compel Facebook to disclose user account...