Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

Find lawyers in the LII Lawyer Directory

Your query crime returned 214 results.

Your search has returned a large number of results. You might want to consider using additional terms to narrow it.

	KENNEDY V. LOUISIANA [Syllabus]
	GONZALES V. DUENAS-ALVAREZ [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	LEOCAL V. ASHCROFT [Syllabus]
	LOS ANGELES V. ALAMEDA BOOKS, INC. [Syllabus] The Ninth Circuit's judgment striking down a Los Angeles ordinance banning multiple-use adult entertainment establishments under Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U. S. 41, is reversed, and the case is remanded.
	HARRIS V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	ALMENDAREZ-TORRES V. U.S., 523 U.S. 224 (1998) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. HAYES [Syllabus]
	ABBOTT V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	NIJHAWAN V. HOLDER [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. BAJAKAJIAN, 524 U.S. 321 (1998) [Syllabus]
	LOPEZ V. GONZALES [Syllabus]
	CASTILLO V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] 18 U.S.C. 924©(1) punishes with five years imprisonment whoever, during a federal crime of violence, ""uses or carries a firearm, . . . and if the firearm is a machinegun, or a destructive device, ""with thirty years. The issues are (1) whether the firearm type is an element of the offense which must be alleged in the indictment and found by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt, or is a sentencing factor to be found by the judge by a preponderance of evidence, and (2) whether equivocal ""legislative history"" overrides the doctrine of constitutional doubt set forth in Jones V. United States, 526 U.S. 227 (1999), that a statute must be interpreted to avoid possible unconstitutionality under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments."
	BEGAY V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	CHAMBERS V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	GRAHAM V. FLORIDA [Syllabus]
	JONES V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] Whether , in light of United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), and the interpretive rule that constitutionally doubtful constructions should be avoided, see DeBartolo Corp. v. Florida Gulf Coast Trades Council, 485 U.S. 568, 575 (1988), Section 844(I) applies to the arson of a private residence: and if so, whether its application to the private residence in the present case is constitutional."
	CLARK V. ARIZONA [Syllabus]
	INS V. AGUIRRE-AGUIRRE [Syllabus]
	DEAN V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. RODRIGUEZ-MORENO [Syllabus]
	APPRENDI V. NEW JERSEY [Syllabus] Whether this Court should decline the invitation of the New Jersey Supreme Court to decide whether New Jersey's hate crime law, N.J.S.A. 2C:44-3e., unconstitutionally provides for an extended term of imprisonment increasing the maximum possible penalty by ten years, based on proof by a preponderance of the evidence, rather than proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and denies the defendant rights to notice by indictment and trial by jury."
	ROPER V. SIMMONS [Syllabus]
	HOPKINS V. REEVES, 524 U.S. 88 (1998) [Syllabus]
	RING V. ARIZONA [Syllabus] Walton v. Arizona, 497 U. S. 639, is irreconcilable with Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U. S. 466, and is, accordingly, overruled to the extent that it allows a sentencing judge, sitting without a jury, to find an aggravating circumstance necessary for imposition of the death penalty, see 497 U. S., at 647-649. Because Arizona's enumerated aggravating factors operate as "the functional equivalent of an element of a greater offense," Apprendi, 530 U. S., at 494, n. 19, the Sixth Amendment requires that they be found by a jury.
	AYERS V. BELMONTES [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	SYKES V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	SKILLING V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	COLLINS V. YOUNGBLOOD, 497 U.S. 37 (1990) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. LARA [Syllabus] Whether Section 1301, as amended, of the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968, 25 U.S.C. 1301, validly restores an Indian tribe's sovereign power to prosecute members of other tribes, such that a federal prosecution following a tribal prosecution for an offense with the same elements is valid under the Double Jeopardy Clause of the 5th Amendment.
	UNITED STATES V. CABRALES, 524 U.S. 1 (1998) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. MORRISON [Syllabus] 1. Whether 42 U.S.C. 13981, the provision of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 that creates a private right of action for victims of gender-motivated violence, is a valid exercise of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. 2. Whether 42 U.S.C. 13981 is a valid exercise of Congress's power under the Enforcement Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
	BROWN V. PAYTON [Syllabus]
	PANETTI V. QUARTERMAN [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. JIMENEZ RECIO [Syllabus] A conspiracy does not automatically terminate simply because the Government has defeated its object.
	UNITED STATES V. BOOKER [Syllabus]
	BRADSHAW V. STUMPF [Syllabus]
	EWING V. CALIFORNIA [Syllabus] The California Court of Appeal's decision that Ewing's sentence under the State's three strikes law is not grossly disproportionate under the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments is affirmed.
	[Syllabus]
	JOHNSON V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	ILLINOIS V. LIDSTER [Syllabus] Whether Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000), prohibits police officers from conducting a checkpoint organized to investigate a prior offense, at which checkpoint law enforcement officers briefly stopped all oncoming motorists to hand out flyers about—and look for witnesses to—the offense, where the checkpoint was conducted exactly one week after—and at approximately the same time of day as—the offense, and where the checkpoint otherwise met the reasonableness standard articulated in Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979).
	[Syllabus]
	JAMES V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	ASHCROFT V. FREE SPEECH COALITION [Syllabus] Provisions of the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 prohibiting "any visual depiction" that "is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct," as well as any sexually explicit image "advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression" it depicts a minor engaging in such conduct, are overbroad and therefore violate the First Amendment.
	CALDERON V. THOMPSON, 523 U.S. 538 (1998) [Syllabus]
	SMITH V. DOE [Syllabus] Because Alaska's "Megan's Law" is nonpunitive, its retroactive application does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause.
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. OBRIEN [Syllabus]
	WASHINGTON V. GLUCKSBERG, 117 S.CT. 2258, 138 L.ED.2D 772 (1997). [Syllabus]
	WADDINGTON V. SARAUSAD [Syllabus]
	TENNARD V. DRETKE [Syllabus]
	WATCHTOWER BIBLE & TRACT SOC. OF N. Y., INC. V.VILLAGE OF STRATTON [Syllabus] A village ordinance making it a misdemeanor to engage in door-to-door advocacy without first registering with the mayor and receiving a permit violates the First Amendment as it applies to religious proselytizing, anonymous political speech, and the distribution of handbills.
	FLORIDA V. NIXON [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	BAILEY V. UNITED STATES, 516 U.S. 137 (1996). [Syllabus]
	CARACHURI-ROSENDO V. HOLDER [Syllabus]
	RAMDASS V. ANGELONE [Syllabus] Simmons v. South Carolina holds that when a prosecutor seeks the death sentence on the ground of the defendant's future dangerousness, the defendant has a constitutional right to inform the jurors truthfully that if they spare his life, state law forbids him ever to be released from prison. Does the rule in Simmons turn on the actual operation of state law, or on its hypertechnical terms; and must a federal habeas court adjudicating a Simmons claim make its own analysis of the functional consequences of state law, or is it bound by the state courts' characterization of state law for federal constitutional purposes?"
	BROWN V. SANDERS [Syllabus]
	SWIDLER & BERLIN V. UNITED STATES, 524 U.S. 399 (1998) [Syllabus]
	LEWIS V. UNITED STATES, 523 U.S. 155 (1998) [Syllabus]
	SCHEIDLER V. NATIONAL ORGANIZATION FORWOMEN, INC. [Syllabus] Because all of the predicate acts supporting the jury's finding of a violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act must be reversed, the Seventh Circuit's decision that petitioner protesters' activities at abortion clinics violated RICO must also be reversed.
	SMALL V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. GAUDIN, 515 U.S. 506 (1995). [Syllabus]
	SHEPARD V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	OREGON V. ICE [Syllabus]
	NEDER V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	MITCHELL V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. RODRIQUEZ [Syllabus]
	DEVENPECK V. ALFORD [Syllabus]
	CARMELL V. TEXAS [Syllabus] Whether the Texas Court of Appeals erred in concluding that application of the 1993 version of Texas's article 38.07, Code of Criminal Procedure, was not ex post facto when: (I) the offense occurred in 1992, a full year before adoption of the new rules of law; (ii) there was no outcry for approximately three years, and the law in effect at the time required outcry within 6 months; and , (iii) the petitioner would have otherwise been entitled to an acquittal, in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
	LYNCE V. MATHIS, 519 U.S. 443 (1997) [Syllabus]
	BELL V. CONE [Syllabus] Respondent's claim that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance during his sentencing hearing was governed by Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668, and the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals' rejection of his claim neither was "contrary to" nor involved "an unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law" under 28 U. S. C. §2254(d)(1).
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	ARIZONA V. JOHNSON [Syllabus]
	DAVIS V. WASHINGTON [Syllabus]
	BREWER V. QUARTERMAN [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	ILLINOIS V. WARDLOW [Syllabus] Whether a person's sudden and unprovoked flight from a clearly identifiable police officer, who is patrolling a high crime area, is sufficiently suspicious to justify a temporary investigator stop pursuant to Terry v. Ohio.
	MONTANA V. EGELHOFF, 518 U.S. 37 (1996). [Syllabus]
	SELL V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] Whether the Court of Appeals erred in rejecting petitioner's argument that allowing the government to administer antipsychotic medication against his will solely to render him competent to stand trial for non-violent offenses would violate his rights under the First Fifth, and Sixth Amendments.
	RICHARDSON V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	ROMPILLA V. BEARD [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	KYLES V. WHITLEY, 514 U.S. 419 (1995). [Syllabus]
	JONES V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	LOPEZ V. DAVIS [Syllabus] Whether the director of the Bureau of Prisons has the authority to categorically deny consideration for eligibility for early release as proscribed by 18 U.S.C. 3621(e) (2) (B) to an inmate convicted of a nonviolent offense after the inmate has completed the requisite residential substance abuse program.
	OHIO V. AKRON CENTER, 497 U.S. 502 (1990) [Syllabus]
	WATSON V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	MARYLAND V. PRINGLE [Syllabus] Where drugs and a roll of cash are found in the passenger compartment of a car with multiple occupants, and all deny ownership, does the Fourth Amendment prohibit a police officer form arresting the occupants of the car?
	FOWLER V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	NEVADA V. HICKS [Syllabus] A tribal court does not have jurisdiction over tortious conduct and 42 U. S. C. §1983 claims against state officials who entered tribal land to investigate off-reservation violations of state law.
	CARTER V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] Whether bank larceny, 18 U.S.C. 2113(b) (Supp.IV 1998), is a lesser included offense of bank robbery, 18 U.S.C. 2113 (a)."
	VIRGINIA V. MOORE [Syllabus]
	PREMO V. MOORE [Syllabus]
	BOYLE V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	WITTE V. UNITED STATES, 515 U.S. 389 (1995). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. BALSYS, 524 U.S. 666 (1998) [Syllabus]
	MICHIGAN V. BRYANT [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	CALIFORNIA DEP'T OF CORRECTIONS V. MORALES, 514 U.S. 499 (1995). [Syllabus]
	ONTARIO V. QUON [Syllabus]
	ROGERS V. TENNESSEE [Syllabus] The Tennessee Supreme Court's retroactive application to petitioner of its decision abolishing the common law " year and a day rule" did not deny petitioner due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
	ILLINOIS V. MCARTHUR [Syllabus] Whether it is constitutionally reasonable for police officers to secure a residence from the outside, and prohibit the occupant's entry into that residence for a short time while they obtain a search warrant based on probable cause, when this Court has suggested that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment in Segura v. United States 468 U.S. 796, 82 L.Ed.2d 599, 104 S.Ct. 3380 (1984) and other courts have found similar behavior consistent with the Fourth Amendment, and Segura."
	BLAKELY V. WASHINGTON [Syllabus] Whether a fact (other than a prior conviction) necessary for an upward departure from a statutory standard sentencing range must be proved according to the procedures mandated by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000).
	FREEMAN V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	LAWRENCE V. TEXAS [Syllabus] 1. Whether petitioners' criminal convictions under the Texas Homosexual Conduct law- which criminalizes sexual intimacy by same-sex couples, but not identical behavior by different-sex couples- violate the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal protection of the laws? 2. Whether Petitioner's criminal convictions for adult consensual sexual intimacy in the home violate their vital interest in liberty and privacy protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? 3. Whether Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986), should be overruled?
	[Syllabus]
	ALABAMA V. SHELTON [Syllabus] Under Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U. S. 25, 40, a suspended sentence that may "end up in the actual deprivation of a person's liberty" may not be imposed unless the defendant was accorded "the guiding hand of counsel" in the prosecution for the crime charged.
	VIRGINIA V. HICKS [Syllabus] 1. May a criminal defendant escape conviction by invoking the overbreadth doctrine even though (I) his own offense did not involve any expressive conduct, and (ii) his conduct was not proscribed by that portion of the government statute, regulation or policy of the government statute, regulation or policy he challenges as overbroad? 2. In the context of government's attempts to exclude some non-residents from a public housing complex, does the Constitution recognize a distinction between actions taken by government as landlord and actions taken by government as sovereign?
	WILLIAMS V. TAYLOR [Syllabus] 2. Whether 28 U.S.C. sec. 2254 (e) (2), which prohibits a federal habeas court from holding an evidentiary hearing only ""if the applicant has failed to develop the factual basis of a claim in State Court proceedings, ""governs petitioner's claims where throughout state proceedings, the state suppressed the relevant facts, denied petitioner's discovery requests, denied all investigative and expert resources to investigate, develop, and discover claims, and denied an evidentiary hearing."
	BRENDLIN V. CALIFORNIA [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	INS V. ST. CYR [Syllabus] Amendments that the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 made to the Immigration and Nationality Act did not affect the federal courts' habeas jurisdiction to decide pure questions of law; nor did they affect the availability of discretionary relief from deportation for aliens whose convictions were obtained through plea agreements before the amendments' effective dates.
	WILSON V. LAYNE [Syllabus]
	VACCO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW YORK V. QUILL, 117 S.CT. 2293, 138 L.ED.2D (1997) [Syllabus]
	BUCHANAN V. ANGELONE, 522 U.S. 269 (1998) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	DRETKE V. HALEY [Syllabus] Whether the "actual innocence" exception to the procedural default rule concerning federal habeas corpus claims should apply to noncapital sentencing errors?
	BURGESS V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	ARIZONA V. EVANS, 514 U.S. 1 (1995). [Syllabus]
	CUNNINGHAM V. CALIFORNIA [Syllabus]
	SKINNER V. SWITZER [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. RAMIREZ, 523 U.S. 65 (1998) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	SHAFER V. SOUTH CAROLINA [Syllabus] The South Carolina Supreme Court incorrectly interpreted Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U. S. 154, when it declared that case inapplicable to South Carolina's current sentencing scheme.
	SALINAS V. UNITED STATES, 522 U.S. 52 (1997) [Syllabus]
	DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. HELLER [Syllabus]
	BOULWARE V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	HAMDAN V. RUMSFELD [Syllabus]
	HOPE V. PELZER [Syllabus] Respondent Alabama prison guards were not entitled to qualified immunity at the summary judgment phase where reasonable officers would have known that using a hitching post to punish a prisoner under the circumstances alleged by petitioner inmate violated the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.
	GRAY V. MARYLAND, 523 U.S. 185 (1998) [Syllabus]
	MCKUNE V. LILE [Syllabus] The Tenth Circuit's judgment-that Kansas prison officials' threat to reduce respondent inmate's privilege status and transfer him to maximum security if he refused to participate in a sexual abuse treatment program constituted compelled self-incrimination violative of the Fifth Amendment-is reversed, and the case is remanded.
	HOFFMAN PLASTIC COMPOUNDS, INC. V. NLRB [Syllabus] Federal immigration policy, as expressed in the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, foreclosed the National Labor Relations Board from awarding backpay to an undocumented alien who was never legally authorized to work in the United States.
	SAUCIER V. KATZ [Syllabus] A qualified immunity ruling requires an analysis not susceptible of fusion with the question whether unreasonable force was used in making an arrest; petitioner, a military police officer, was entitled to qualified immunity for his actions in arresting respondent.
	ATWATER V. LAGO VISTA [Syllabus] The Fourth Amendment does not forbid a warrantless arrest for a minor criminal offense, such as a misdemeanor seatbelt violation punishable only by a fine.
	ERIE V. PAP’S A. M. [Syllabus] Did the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the court of last resort of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, improperly strike an ordinance of the City of Erie which fully comports with the principles articulated in Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., thereby willfully disregarding binding precedent in violation of the Supremacy Clause at Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States?
	RICE V. COLLINS [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	GONZALES V. OREGON [Syllabus]
	KOON V. UNITED STATES, 518 U.S. 81 (1996) [Syllabus]
	FEDERAL ELECTION COMMN V. WISCONSIN RIGHT TOLIFE, INC. [Syllabus]
	PUCKETT V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	JONES V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. LABONTE, 520 U.S. 751 (1997) [Syllabus]
	IOWA V. TOVAR [Syllabus]
	DEMORE V. KIM [Syllabus] Whether respodent's mandatory detention under Section 1226 ( c) violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, where respondent was convicted of an aggravated felony after his admission into the United States.
	[Syllabus]
	ARIZONA V. GANT [Syllabus]
	BARTNICKI V. VOPPER [Syllabus] Respondent news media's disclosure of the contents of an illegally intercepted cell phone conversation about a public issue is protected by the First Amendment.
	UNITED STATES V. SANTOS [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	ALABAMA V. BOZEMAN [Syllabus] The literal language of Art. IV(e) of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers-which provides that a State that obtains a prisoner for trial must try him within 120 days of his arrival, Art. IV(c), and if it returns him to his original place of imprisonment prior to that trial, charges "shall" be dismissed with prejudice, Art. IV(e)-bars further criminal proceedings when a defendant is returned to the original place of imprisonment before trial.
	INDIANAPOLIS  V.  EDMOND [Syllabus] Whether checkpoints at which law enforcement officers briefly stop vehicular traffic, check motorists' licenses and vehicle registrations, look for signs of impairment, and walk a ""narcotics detection"" dog around the exterior of each stopped automobile are unlawful under the Fourth Amendment."
	TOME V. UNITED STATES, 513 U.S. 150 (1995). [Syllabus]
	LOVING V. UNITED STATES, 517 U.S. 748 (1996). [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	BOUSLEY V. UNITED STATES, 523 U.S. 614 (1998) [Syllabus]
	MARTINEZ V. COURT OF APPEAL OF CAL.,FOURTH APPELLATE DIST. [Syllabus] Does a criminal defendant have a constitutional right to elect self-representation on direct appeal from a judgment of conviction?
	[Syllabus]
	KLEHR ET UX. V. A. O. SMITH CORP., 117 S.CT. 1984, 138 L.ED.2D 373 (1997). [Syllabus]
	ALVAREZ V. SMITH [Syllabus]
	GRAY V. NETHERLAND, WARDEN, 117 S. CT. 110, 137 L. ED. 2D 234 (1996) [Syllabus]
	MUSCARELLO V. UNITED STATES, 524 U.S. 125 (1998) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	WILKIE V. ROBBINS [Syllabus]
	LOGAN V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	561 U. S. ____ (2010) [Syllabus]
	KNOWLES V. MIRZAYANCE [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	WASHINGTON V. RECUENCO [Syllabus]
	MELENDEZ-DIAZ V. MASSACHUSETTS [Syllabus]
	ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	DOLAN V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	DIXON V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	GREENLAW V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	MILKOVICH V. LORAIN JOURNAL CO., 497 U.S. 1 (1990) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. WELLS, 519 U.S. 482 (1997). [Syllabus]
	WILKINSON V. AUSTIN [Syllabus]
	LILLY V. VIRGINIA [Syllabus]
	CONNICK V. THOMPSON [Syllabus]
	CARR V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. RESENDIZ-PONCE [Syllabus]
	OVERTON V. BAZZETTA [Syllabus] In 1995, the Michigan Department of Corrections revised its prison visitation policy to: (1) prohibit visits by a minor child, unless the minor is the child, stepchild or grandchild of the prisoner; (2) prohibit visits by a prisoner's child when the prisoner's parental rights have been terminated; (3) require that all visiting minor children be accompanied by a parent or legal guardian; (4) prohibit visits by former inmates unless the former inmate is in the prisoner's immediate family; and (5) impose a ban on visitation for a minimum of two years for any inmate found guilty of two or more major misconduct's for substance abuse. Do these restrictions, as set forth above, (a) violate a right of intimate association under the First Amendment as retained by a incarcerated felon or (b) constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment?
	[Syllabus]
	RICHARDS V. WISCONSIN, 520 U.S. 385 (1997). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. COTTON [Syllabus] A defective indictment does not deprive a court of jurisdiction; the omission from a federal indictment of a fact that enhances the statutory maximum sentence does not justify a court of appeals' vacating the enhanced sentence, even though the defendant did not object in the trial court.
	[Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	CHAVEZ V. MARTINEZ [Syllabus] 1. Whether the Ninth Circuit panel Correctly characterized the Supreme Court's Fifth Amendment discussion in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990), as non-binding dicta and thereby ignored its holding favorable to petitioner. 2. Whether a violation of the Fifth Amendment, potentially resulting in an award of civil damages, occurs at the time of the purported coercive the constitutionally violative statement in a criminal proceeding. 3. Whether the Ninth Circuit panel correctly held that the conduct of this investigating officer was so offensive as to deny him qualified immunity.
	ABDUL-KABIR V. QUARTERMAN [Syllabus]
	OHIO ADULT PAROLE AUTHORITY V. WOODARD, 523 U.S. 272 (1998) [Syllabus]
	GONZALES V. CARHART [Syllabus]
	LEE V. KEMNA [Syllabus] Two Missouri procedural Rules, as injected into this case by the state appellate court, did not constitute state grounds adequate to bar federal habeas review of the merits of petitioner's federal constitutional claim.
	PEPPER V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	FLORES-FIGUEROA V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]