Skip to main content
search

evidence

Alleyne v. United States

in
Oral argument: 
January 14, 2013
Court below: 
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

A jury found Allen Alleyne guilty of robbery under a federal statue, but the jury did not find him guilty of brandishing a weapon during the robbery. A federal criminal statute provides that a judge can raise the mandatory minimum sentence for robbery with a finding that it was more likely than not that the defendant brandished a firearm. Thus, a judge’s finding can raise the mandatory minimum prison sentence even when a jury was unable to come to that same conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court allowed such findings from judges in Harris v. United States. Now, the court will reconsider that position or have the opportunity to further clarify how much sentencing discretion can be given to judges under federal statutes.

Questions Presented: 

Whether this Court’s decision in Harris v. United States, 536 U.S. 545 (2002), should be overruled.

top

Issue(s)

Should the Supreme Court overrule Harris v. United States and require that a jury find facts beyond a reasonable doubt in order to enhance a sentence beyond the ordinarily prescribed statutory maximum?

top

Written by: 
Michaela Dudley
Allison Nolan
Edited by: 
Jenny Liu
Additional Resources: 

top

Comcast Corp. v. Behrend

in
Oral argument: 
November 5, 2012
Court below: 
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Respondent Caroline Behrend et al., cable television subscribers, brought an antitrust class action against Petitioner Comcast Corporation alleging anticompetitive activity. In order to be certified as a class, Respondents had to present evidence that they suffered damages on a class-wide basis. The evidence they submitted consisted of a damages model prepared by their expert witness. Comcast challenges the District Court’s reliance upon that evidence, claiming that it is inadmissible under standards set forth in Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U. S. 579 (1993). In this case, the Supreme Court will address whether evidence presented in support of class certification must be admissible under those standards. The decision will likely significantly impact the ability of plaintiffs to certify as a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, and it may also affect underlying commercial conduct, such as the future use of territory-swapping and clustering agreements. 

Questions Presented: 

May a district court certify a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 without resolving whether the plaintiff class has introduced admissible evidence to show that they may be awarded damages on a class-wide basis?

Issue

May a district court certify a class action without resolving “merits arguments” that bear on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23’s prerequisites for certification, including whether purportedly common issues predominate over individual ones under Rule 23(b)(3)?

top

Written by: 
Thomas Santoro
Stephen Wirth
Edited by: 
Brooks Kaufman
Acknowledgments: 

The authors would like to thank former Supreme Court Reporter of Decisions Frank Wagner for his assistance in editing this preview.

Additional Resources: 

Skinner v. Switzer (09-9000)

in

Oral argument: Oct. 13, 2010

Appealed from: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (Feb. 2, 2010)

FEDERAL HABEAS CORPUS, CIVIL RIGHTS, DNA TESTING, CAPITAL MURDER

Florida convicted petitioner Henry Skinner of capital murder and sentenced him to death. Although Skinner admits that he was present at the scene of the murders, he maintains his innocence. Skinner now seeks access to biological evidence for DNA testing, which he claims will prove that he is innocent of the murders. After unsuccessfully filing two habeas corpus claims, Skinner filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim to attempt to gain access to the evidence. The Fifth Circuit denied Skinner’s motion to stay his execution, but Skinner appealed that decision and the Supreme Court agreed to hear Skinner’s case. The Court must now decide whether a demand for access to biological evidence may be brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, or whether the claim falls within the realm of habeas corpus law and was thus improperly filed. The Supreme Court’s decision will not only decide Skinner’s fate, but also clarify the scope and procedure of habeas corpus claims.

Michigan v. Bryant (09-150)

in

Oral argument: Oct. 5, 2010

Appealed from: Michigan Supreme Court (June 10, 2009)

EVIDENCE, SIXTH AMENDMENT, CONFRONTATION CLAUSE, TESTIMONIAL

As Anthony Covington lay on the ground injured from a gunshot wound, he provided police officers on the scene with a description of his alleged shooter, before dying a few hours later. The police arrested the suspected shooter, Richard Bryant, based on Covington’s statements, and Bryant was subsequently convicted of second-degree murder after the Michigan trial court admitted Covington’s statements into evidence. Bryant claims that the admission of Covington’s statements violated his right to cross-examine an opposing witness, as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause. The State of Michigan argues that Covington’s statements were obtained during the police’s response to an “ongoing emergency” and that its admission did not violate the Confrontation Clause. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case will likely offer further guidance on what statements are “nontestimonial” under its landmark decisions in Crawford v. Washington and Davis v. Washington, which redefined the ambit of the Confrontation Clause.

suppression of evidence

in

1) A judge may "supress" evidence (or not allow it in the trial) because it is inadmissible for some reason.  This is proper and permissible.

2) A prosecutor in a criminal case who "supresses" evidence if they hide or withhold it.  This is improper and not permissible.

preponderance of the evidence

in

A requirement that more then 50% of the evidence points to something.  This is the burden of proof in a civil trial.

For example: At the end of civil case A v. B, 51% of the evidence favors A.  Thus, A has a preponderance of the evidence, A has met their burden of proof, and A will win the case.

life expectancy

in

Definition

The period of time that a person is expected to live based on factors

insufficient evidence

in

Evidence which fails to meet the burden of proof.  In a trial, if the prosecution finishes presenting their case and the judge finds they have not met their burden of proof, the judge may dismiss the case (even before the defense presents their side) for insufficient evidence.

Insufficient evidence may even be grounds for appeal.

inadmissible evidence

in

Evidence that can not be presented to the jury or decision maker for any of a variety of reasons:  it was improperly obtained, it is prejudicial (the prejudicial value outweighs the probative value), it is hearsay, it is not relevant to the case etc.

circumstantial evidence

in

Evidence that implies a person commited a crime, (for example, the person was seen running away from the crime scene).  There must be a lot of circumstantial evidence accumulated to have real weight.  Compare to direct evidence.

Syndicate content