skip navigation
search

Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

Search for:
All decisions
Only decisions since 1991
Only summaries of decisions
Only historic decisions
use and, or, not -- and is default
* acts as wildcard, phrases in "double quotes"

Your query criminal procedure returned 88 results.

1000 SMITH V. ROBBINS
[Syllabus]
1. Did the Ninth Circuit err in finding that California's no-merit brief procedure-- in which appellate counsel who has found no nonfrivolous issues remains available to brief any issue the appellate court might identify--violated the Sixth Amendment Anders right to effective assistance of counsel on appeal? 2. Did the Ninth Circuit err when it ruled that the asserted Anders violation required a new appeal, without testing the claimed Sixth Amendment error under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)? 3. Did the Ninth Circuit violate the rule announced in Teague v. lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989),which prohibits the retroactive application of a new rule on collateral review, when it invalidated California's wellsettled, good-faith interpretation of federal law?
784 DANFORTH V. MINNESOTA
[Syllabus]
735 STENBERG V. CARHART
[Syllabus]
1. Whether the Eighth Circuit's adoption of a broad unconstitutional reading of Nebraska's ban on partial -birth abortion, which directly conflicts with the narrower constitutional construction of similar statutes by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals and that of the State officials charged with enforcement of the statute, violates fundamental rules of statutory construction and basic principles of federalism in contradiction of the clear direction of this Court in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services? 2. Whether the Eighth Circuit misapplied this Court's instructions in Planned Parenthood v. Casey by finding that a law banning cruel and unusual methods of killing a partially-born child, is an ""undue burden"" on the right to abortion?"
735 GONZALES V. CARHART
[Syllabus]
707 WHORTON V. BOCKTING
[Syllabus]
707 SMITH V. DOE
[Syllabus]
Because Alaska's "Megan's Law" is nonpunitive, its retroactive application does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause.
686 MITCHELL V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
686 LIBRETTI V. UNITED STATES, 516 U.S. 29 (1995).
[Syllabus]
686 MARYLAND V. CRAIG, 497 U.S. 836 (1990)
[Syllabus]
674 CHENEY V. UNITED STATES DIST. COURT FOR D. C.
[Syllabus]
(1) Whether the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. 1, §§ 1 et seq., can be construed, consistent with the Constitution, principles of separation of powers, and this Court's decisions governing judicial review of Executive Branch actions, to authorize broad discovery of the process by which the Vice President and other senior advisors gathered information to advise the President on important national policy matters, based solely on an unsupported allegation in a complaint that the advisory group was not constituted as the President expressly directed and the advisory group itself reported? (2) Whether the court of appeals had mandamus or appellate jurisdiction to review the district court's unprecedented discovery orders in this litigation?
658
[Syllabus]
613
[Syllabus]
605 BEARD V. BANKS
[Syllabus]
585 MILLER-EL V. COCKRELL
[Syllabus]
The Fifth Circuit erred when it declined to issue a certificate of appealability to review the District Court's denial of habeas relief to petitioner.
585 BLACK V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
585 BANKS V. DRETKE
[Syllabus]
In this Texas capital case, the Fifth Circuit (in an unpublished order) overturned the district court's issuance of habeas corpus relief as to Petitioner Delma Banks' sentence. Banks contends that the Court of Appeals reached this result only by misapplying and misinterpreting well-established 'precedents of this Court regarding, inter alia, prosecutorial misuse of peremptory challenges to exclude African Americans from Banks' petit jury, and trial counsel's ineffective assistance of counsel. Specifically, Banks seeks review by this Court of the following questions: 1. Did the Fifth Circuit commit legal error in rejecting Banks' Brady claim— that the prosecution suppressed material witness impeachment evidence that prejudiced him in the penalty phase of his trial--on the grounds that: (a) the evidence supporting the claim was procedurally defaulted, notwithstanding the fact that, like in Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (1999), there was no reasonable basis for concluding that counsel for Banks could have discovered the suppressed evidence prior to or during that trial or state post-conviction proceedings; and (b) the suppressed evidence was immaterial to Banks' death sentence, where the panel neglected to consider that the trial prosecutors viewed the evidence to be of utmost importance to showing a capital sentence was appropriate? 2.Did the Fifth Circuit act contrary to Stricland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)and Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000),where it weighed each item of mitigating evidence separately and concluded that no single category would have brought a different result at sentencing without weighing the impact of the evidence collectively? 3. Did the Fifth Circuit act contrary to Harris v. Nelsen, 394 U.S. 286 (1969)and Withrow v. Williams, 507 U.S. 680 (1993) in holding that Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(b) does not apply to habeas proceeding because evidentiary hearings in those proceedings are not similar to civil trials? 4. Did the Fifth Circuit err in refusing to consider Bank's jury discrimination claim--virtually identical to one this Court is consider Bank's jury discrimination claim-- virtually identical to one this Court is considering in Miller-El v. Cockrell (No.01-7662)--based upon its conclusions that: (a) the state court's rejection of that claim rested upon an adequate and independent state ground; and that (b) there was inadequate prejudice to Mr. Bank's interest to excuse his counsel's failing to present, at trail, direct and statistical evidence of the prosecution's consistent policy of using peremptory challenges to keep African Americans off felony juries?
560 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.
544 UNITED STATES V. MARTINEZ-SALAZAR
[Syllabus]
Whether a defendant is entitled to automatic reversal of his conviction when he uses a peremptory challenge to remove a potential juror whom the district court erroneously failed to remove for cause, and he ultimately exhausts his remaining peremptory challenges.
532
[Syllabus]
532 GREENLAW V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
532 PASQUANTINO V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
499 CRAWFORD V. WASHINGTON
[Syllabus]
499 CARLISLE V. UNITED STATES, 517 U.S. 416 (1996).
[Syllabus]
499 WALL V. KHOLI
[Syllabus]
499 OHIO ADULT PAROLE AUTHORITY V. WOODARD, 523 U.S. 272 (1998)
[Syllabus]
499 FREEMAN V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
499 SCHRIRO V. SUMMERLIN
[Syllabus]
1) Did the 9th Circuit err by holding that the new rule announced in Ring v. Arizona is substantive, rather than procedural, and therefore exempt from the retroactivity analysis of Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989)? (2) Did the 9th Circuit err by holding that the new rule announced in Ring applies retroactively to cases on collateral review under Teague's exception for watershed rules of criminal procedure that alter bedrock procedural principles and seriously enhance the accuracy of the proceedings?
463 OSULLIVAN V. BOERCKEL
[Syllabus]
463 BULLCOMING V. NEW MEXICO
[Syllabus]
463 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.
463 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)."
463 IOWA V. TOVAR
[Syllabus]
463 FERGUSON V. CHARLESTON
[Syllabus]
A state hospital's performance of drug tests to obtain evidence of maternity patients' cocaine use for law enforcement purposes is an unreasonable search if the patients have not consented to the procedure; the interest in using the threat of criminal sanctions to deter such use cannot justify a departure from the general rule that an official nonconsensual search is unconstitutional if not authorized by a valid warrant.
463
[Syllabus]
463 CLINTON V. GOLDSMITH
[Syllabus]
443 UNITED STATES V. VONN
[Syllabus]
A defendant who does not object to a trial court's error under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 must satisfy Rule 52(b)'s plain-error rule in order to withdraw a guilty plea; a reviewing court may look beyond the plea colloquy to the whole record in determining whether the defendant's substantial rights were affected by the Rule 11 error.
443 UNITED STATES V. MEZZANATTO, 513 U.S. 196 (1995).
[Syllabus]
443 O'DELL V. NETHERLAND, WARDEN, 117 S.CT. 1969, 138 L.ED.2D 351 (1997).
[Syllabus]
443 GONZALES V. OREGON
[Syllabus]
418 MAYLE V. FELIX
[Syllabus]
418 UNITED STATES V. RESENDIZ-PONCE
[Syllabus]
418 CAPERTON V. A.T. MASSEY COAL CO.
[Syllabus]
418 CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF UNITED STATES OFAMERICA V. WHITING
[Syllabus]
418 SAWYER V. SMITH, 497 U.S. 227 (1990)
[Syllabus]
418
[Syllabus]
418 PUCKETT V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
418
[Syllabus]
418 WILKIE V. ROBBINS
[Syllabus]
418 RUMSFELD V. PADILLA
[Syllabus]
(1) Whether the President has authority as Commander in Chief and in light of Congress's Authorization for Use of Military Force, Pub. L. No. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224, to seize and detain a United States citizen in the United States based on a determination by the President that he is an enemy combatant who is closely associated with al Qaeda and has engaged in hostile and war-like acts, or whether 18 U.S.C. 4001(a) precludes that exercise of Presidential authority? (2) Whether the district court has jurisdiction over the proper respondent to the amended habeas petition?
418 UNITED STATES V. DOMINGUEZ BENITEZ
[Syllabus]
Whether, in order to show that a violation of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 constitutes reversible plain error, a defendant must demonstrate that he would not have pleaded guilty if the violation had not occurred?
418 UNITED STATES V. CABRALES, 524 U.S. 1 (1998)
[Syllabus]
361 UNITED STATES V. WELLS, 519 U.S. 482 (1997).
[Syllabus]
361 UNITED STATES V. ARMSTRONG ET AL., 517 U.S. 456 687 (1996).
[Syllabus]
361 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.
361
[Syllabus]
361 DUSENBERY V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
The Government's sending of notice by certified mail of a cash forfeiture to petitioner's place of incarceration satisfied his due process rights.
361 INTEL CORP. V. ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC.
[Syllabus]
361 BOUSLEY V. UNITED STATES, 523 U.S. 614 (1998)
[Syllabus]
361 GRAY V. NETHERLAND, WARDEN, 117 S. CT. 110, 137 L. ED. 2D 234 (1996)
[Syllabus]
361 ROTELLA V. WOOD
[Syllabus]
In calculating the statute of limitations for a civil RICO claim, does the cause of action accrue when the injury alone happens, or when the plaintiff has both suffered the injury and discovered that it results from a pattern of RICO activity?
361
[Syllabus]
361
[Syllabus]
361 LAMBRIX V. SINGLETARY, SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEP'T OF CORRECTIONS, 520 U.S. 518 (1997)
[Syllabus]
361
[Syllabus]
280 SKINNER V. SWITZER
[Syllabus]
280 ASHCROFT V. IQBAL
[Syllabus]
280 WOOD V. ALLEN
[Syllabus]
280 JAMA V. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT
[Syllabus]
280 BELL V. THOMPSON
[Syllabus]
280 WASHINGTON V. RECUENCO
[Syllabus]
280
[Syllabus]
280 CASTLE ROCK V. GONZALES
[Syllabus]
280
[Syllabus]
280 UNITED STATES V. TINKLENBERG
[Syllabus]
280 BERGHUIS V. SMITH
[Syllabus]
280
[Syllabus]
280 SHINSEKI V. SANDERS
[Syllabus]
280 UNITED STATES V. HYDE, 520 U.S. 670 (1997).
[Syllabus]
280 GARNER  V.  JONES
[Syllabus]
1. Whether the ex post facto clause of the United States Constitution bars the State from applying its amended regulation governing the reconsideration schedule for life-sentenced inmates who have been denied parole, when the amendment has no effect on the sentence imposed, the substantive formula for the consideration of the prisoner for parole, or the determination of the prisoner's eligibility for parole, or whether the change creates only ""the most speculative and attentuated possibility of producing the prohibited effect of increasing the measure of punishment."" 2. Whether the decision below conflicts with the decisions of other United States Courts of Appeals and the appellate courts of the several states as to the meaning and import of this Court's decisions in California Dep't of Corrections V. Morales and Lynce v. Mathis.
280 CORLEY V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
280 IRIZARRY V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
280
[Syllabus]
280 JOHNSON V. UNITED STATES, 520 U.S. 461 (1997).
[Syllabus]
280
[Syllabus]
280 PEGUERO V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
280 CASTRO V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
When a United States District Court re-characterizes a pro-se federal prisoner's first post conviction motion as a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. $2255, does such re-characterization render the prisoner's subsequent attempt to file a first titled §2255 petition a second or successive petition within the purview of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA)'.'
280 BOARD OF ED. OF INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST.NO. 92 OF POTTAWATOMIE CTY. V. EARLS
[Syllabus]
Petitioner school district's drug testing policy for students participating in extracurricular activities is a reasonable means of furthering the district's important interest in preventing and deterring drug use among its schoolchildren and does not violate the Fourth Amendment.
280 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).