Sixth Amendment

Issues

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case will determine whether the United States Government can constitutionally obtain a preliminary injunction under 18 U.S.C. § 1345 (“§ 1345”) to prohibit a defendant facing federal fraud charges from spending assets not derived directly from the charged crime. See Brief for Petitioner, Sila Luis at i. Luis argues that such a preliminary injunction violates a defendant’s right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment, and that the language of § 1345 does not allow the Government to restrain spending of untainted assets. See id. at 17–18, 34–35. Luis also asserts that even if a preliminary injunction of untainted assets is constitutional, the district court violated Fifth Amendment Due Process by failing to determine whether the Government was entitled, beyond a reasonable doubt, to the untainted assets. See id. at 44. On the other hand, the United States argues that the Supreme Court has previously held the Government’s restraint of all assets in a defendant’s possession to be constitutional, so long as the Government can show probable cause that the assets are forfeitable even if the defendant needs those assets to pay for counsel. See Brief for Respondent, United States at 25–26. The Court’s decision could significantly impact criminal defendants’ ability to hire private counsel in cases of federal fraud and will also shape U.S. asset forfeiture law. See Brief of Amicus Curiae American Bar Association, in Support of Petitioner at 7; see also Brief of Amici Curiae National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers et al., in Support of Petitioner at 5–6.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

Petitioner Luis Mariano Martinez, a convicted felon serving consecutive terms of 35 years to life, filed a writ of habeas corpus seeking relief in federal court. Martinez alleges that his trial counsel provided him with ineffective assistance. Because his appellate counsel failed to raise that ineffective-assistance claim in the first state post-conviction proceeding, an Arizona court precluded the claim on procedural grounds. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that Martinez did not have the right to counsel during his post-conviction proceeding, and concluded that he may not claim ineffective assistance at that stage in order to overcome his procedural default. Consequently, Martinez is barred from raising his ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim, regardless of whether his post-conviction counsel rendered him ineffective assistance and caused the procedural default that precluded his trial-level claim. Martinez argues that he has a constitutional right to effective assistance of post-conviction counsel in raising his ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim; he concludes that ineffective post-conviction counsel should negate the procedural default with respect to his ineffective-trial-counsel claim in this federal habeas proceeding. Respondent Charles L. Ryan, Director of the Arizona Department of Corrections, asserts that defendants do not have a right to counsel in post-conviction proceedings, concluding from this that the ineffective assistance of Martinez’s post-conviction counsel cannot negate his procedural default. In this decision, the Supreme Court will have to weigh the possibility that poorly-represented defendants will lose ineffective-assistance claims due to procedural defaults against the benefits of efficient state criminal proceedings.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

The Supreme Court will decide whether Larry English, trial counsel for Robert McCoy, violated McCoy’s Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel by conceding McCoy’s guilt against McCoy’s wishes. McCoy was arrested in Idaho and charged in Louisiana with a triple homicide. English believed that maintaining McCoy’s innocence in the face of overwhelming evidence would lead to the death penalty for his client, so English went against his client’s wishes and conceded guilt to the jury, hoping to receive leniency in sentencing. The jury returned a guilty verdict and recommended the death penalty. The Louisiana Supreme Court upheld the conviction and McCoy appealed the constitutional question to the Supreme Court. McCoy argues that the Sixth Amendment guarantees him autonomy to decide whether he, or his counsel, will admit guilt. Louisiana argues that once a defendant accepts the assistance of counsel he cedes control over all strategic decisions, including the decision to concede guilt. McCoy also claims that English acted unethically and failed to provide effective assistance of counsel, which Louisiana denies. The outcome of this case could reshape the client-counsel relationship in criminal cases.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides, in relevant part, that a person standing criminal trial has the right to the assistance of an attorney for his defense. In Ake v. Oklahoma, the Supreme Court interpreted that portion of the Sixth Amendment to mean that a defendant also has the right to an expert “to assist in evaluation, preparation, and presentation of the defense.” It is not clear, however, whether a defendant’s right to such an expert entitles him to an independent expert, devoted to advocating specifically for the defense’s case. McWilliams argues that the Sixth Amendment does guarantee an independent expert for the defense of the accused. The State of Alabama, on the other hand, argues that a defendant need only have access to an expert, which may be satisfied through the assistance of an expert neutral to all parties. The outcome of this case will help to further define the scope of protection afforded by the Sixth Amendment regarding a defendant’s right to counsel. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Issues

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.

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Written by

Edited by

Issues

A California state court convicted John Cunningham of sexual abuse of his  son,  and sentenced Cunningham to the maximum possible term under California’s Determinate Sentencing Law. Cunningham asserts that the judicial discretion exercised in his sentencing violated his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to trial by jury. California contends that its sentencing law comports with the requirements for sentencing statutes laid out by the Supreme Court in recent years. A decision for either side has the potential to change the amount of discretion that judges exercise when sentencing defendants.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Additional Resources

Written by

Edited by

Issues

The U.S. Supreme Court in Apprendi v. New Jersey and Blakely v. Washington determined that sentencing decisions that exceed the statutory maximum prescribed for a crime are unconstitutional and violate the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial if they are based on additional fact finding by the trial judge, rather than the jury. Thomas Eugene Ice was convicted by a jury of six crimes, and under a state statutory scheme, was sentenced by a trial judge to serve sentences for four of the convictions consecutively, meaning one after another, rather than concurrently, in which sentences would have been served at the same time. Ice argued that because his sentence exceeded the statutory maximum for any one of his convictions, and was based on determinations made by the trial judge rather than the jury, it violated the rule established in Apprendi and Blakely and was unconstitutional. The Oregon Supreme Court agreed, and it reversed his conviction. The U.S. Supreme Court considers in this case whether its prior rulings apply to consecutive sentencing based on fact finding determinations made by a judge rather than a jury.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources