|
|
News
Supreme Court News Resources
Supreme Court News Stories from 2007
- About
Broken Links
- Supreme Court to Address Discriminatory
Jury Selection
On Tuesday, December 4, the U.S. Supreme
Court will hear arguments in Snyder v. Louisiana,
a case involving a black defendant sentenced
to death by an all-white jury after the prosecution
used its peremptory strikes to exclude all
of the qualified black jurors. During Allen
Snyder’s 1996 trial for the murder
of a man his estranged wife was dating, prosecutor
James Williams of Jefferson Parish urged
the all-white jury to sentence the defendant
to death so that Snyder would not "get
away with it" like O.J. Simpson. Simpson
was acquitted of a highly publicized double
homicide less than a year before. The defense
challenged the selection of the jury as a
violation of equal protection, but Snyder's
conviction was upheld by the Louisiana Supreme
Court. (12/3/07, DPIC Update)
- U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Ineffective
Counsel Case
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear
a case in which it will decide how appellate
courts are to evaluate claims of ineffective
counsel in plea negotiations.
The case, Arave v. Hoffman (07-110), is the
latest effort by the Justices to decide whether
mistakes made by a defense lawyer warrant
overturning a criminal's conviction or sentence.
(11/12/07, DPIC Update)
- Presidential Powers at Issue in Supreme
Court Arguments
On October 10, the U.S. Supreme Court will
hear arguments in Medellin v. Texas, a
case that will determine whether President
Bush overstepped his authority by ordering
state courts to comply with a 2004 International
Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling. ... The ICJ's
2004 ruling called on U.S. courts to review
the cases in light of this treaty violation,
but Texas refused to review Medellin's case
and he petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court
for relief. (10/15/07, DPIC Update)
- Supreme
Court to Decide on Lethal Injection
The
Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to delve
into a divisive controversy over capital
punishment - whether lethal injection
causes excruciating pain and violates
the Constitution's ban on "cruel
and unusual punishment." The justices
have never directly addressed the fundamental
question over the use of the chemical "cocktail" of
drugs used to execute convicted killers.
... Kentucky inmates Ralph Baze and Clyde
Bowling Jr. brought suit in federal court
three years ago, questioning the state's
chemical mixture and the procedures used
to administer it. ... The Supreme Court
has not ruled directly on the "cruel
and unusual" aspect
of lethal injection, but did conclude
last year that prisoners can make last-ditch
legal challenges to the method of execution,
using claims that they would suffer a
painful death. Arguments in the Baze
case will be held early next year, with
a ruling by late June. (9/25/07, CNN.com)
- High
Court Blocks Mentally-ill Killer's Execution
In
another 5-4 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court
blocked the execution of a Texas double
murderer whose attorneys argue he is so
mentally ill he doesn't understand his
punishment. The court did not rule on the
larger issue of whether the mentally ill
should be executed. Instead, the decision
rested on whether he received a full hearing
on the matter in the lower courts. ...
The Supreme Court in 2003 outlawed capital
punishment for the mentally retarded but
never established a clear standard over
defendants claiming some form of mental
illness. States were left to establish
such guidelines within the broader context
of the high court's ruling. The justices
have split 5-4 on the seven other capital
cases this term in which definitive rulings
were issued. (6/28/07, CNN.com)
- Supreme
Court to Review Foreign Nationals Case
The
U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear
Medellin v. Texas, a case that will
determine whether dozens of Mexican foreign
nationals on death row in the U.S. are
entitled to a new hearing because they
were denied their right to seek consular
assistance upon their arrest. The Bush
administration and the Mexican government
both urged the Justices to take the case
after the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
refused to comply with President Bush's
order to state courts to review the cases
of the 50 Mexican foreign nationals who
had been denied their rights under the
Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.
The Bush administration's brief noted
that the Texas court's decision, if not
reversed, "will place the United
States in breach of its international
law obligation" to comply with the
World Court's decision and would "frustrate
the president's judgment that foreign
policy interests are best served by giving
effect to that decision." (5/7/07, DPIC Update)
- Supreme Court to Hear Case Regarding
Exclusion of Capital Jurors
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear
a case regarding the exclusion of capital
jurors to its docket this term. The case,
Uttecht v. Brown, No. 06-413, involves the
removal of a potential juror from a death
penalty trial because of the juror's views
about capital punishment. (1/22/07, DPIC Update)
- High Court Split Over Texas Death Cases
The Supreme Court appeared closely divided
Wednesday in considering pleas to throw
out death sentences for three Texas murderers
in arguments held on the 30th anniversary
of the resumption of capital punishment.
The cases were heard on the same day Texas
executed its 381st prisoner since the high
court reinstated capital punishment. That
total is far more than in any other state.
Nine death penalty opponents were arrested
on the court's plaza when they unfurled
a 30-foot banner reading "Stop Executions."
(1/17/07, ABC News)
- Supreme Court Takes Fourth Texas Death
Penalty Case
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on January
5 to hear another death penalty case from
Texas, this one involving a defendant who
may be mentally incompetent. In 1986, the
Supreme Court held that it is unconstitutional
to execute an inmate who is presently insane.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit
ruled that Scott Panetti, who was allowed
to defend himself in his Texas trial despite
his schizophrenia and 14 stints in mental
hospitals, and who says the devil compelled
his actions, was aware that he committed
a crime and that he was to be punished. The
question for the Supreme Court is whether
mere awareness of one's acts can be equated
with mental competence, or whether the person
also needs to rationally understand what
is taking place. (1/15/07, DPIC Update)
News | National
News | World
News | News
Commentary
|
|
|
|
|