SUPREME COURT UPDATE
Since the textbook went to print, there have been several important U.S. Supreme Court
decisions – some which could fairly be characterized as landmark opinions. Each summary
identifies the relevant subject area the decision impacts.




Skinner v. Switzer, No. 09-9000, 563 U.S. ___ (2011).
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/09-9000.html. A Texas state court convicted Henry
Skinner of murder and sentenced him to death. Skinner sued the prosecuting attorney,
claiming that he had prevented Skinner from getting access to physical evidence he
needed for DNA testing. But Skinner did not file a habeas corpus action – instead he sued
under the Civil Rights Act, claiming his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process and
Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment had been violated.
Decision: Skinner’s right to sue under the Civil Rights Act was authorized by a 6-3 vote.
Subject: Due process, cruel and unusual punishment.
Wall v. Kholi, No. 09-868, 563 U.S. ___ (2011). http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/09868.html. Khalil Kholi was convicted of ten counts of sexual assault on his stepdaughters
and was sentenced to life in prison. After exhausting his state appeals, Kohli asked for a
sentence reduction. Once that request was denied, he filed a habeas corpus petition with
the federal court. The question for the Supreme Court was whether Kholi had waited too
long to file his petition since more than one year had passed since his direct state appeal
was rejected. Prisoners have just one year after the final state appeal is denied to file
habeas corpus petitions. Decision: The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that a request
for sentence reduction extends the deadline for filing a habeas corpus petition. Subject:
Habeas Corpus, Appeals.
Harrington v. Richter, No. 09-587, No. 09-150, 562 U.S. ___(2011).
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/09-587.html. Joshua Richter was convicted of burglary
and murder. Richter argued that he was denied effective assistance of counsel in violation
of the Sixth Amendment because his attorney did not conduct a pre-trial investigation to
determine whether he needed a blood expert. The question for the Supreme Court was
whether it was foreseeable that the state would use blood splatter pattern evidence and if
so, whether the attorney was ineffective because he didn’t get an expert to counter the
state’s evidence. Decision: The Supreme Court concluded that counsel was not
necessarily ineffective if he didn’t anticipate the exact approach the prosecution would
take. The approach counsel took was one out of several possibilities. Subject: Effective
counsel, forensic evidence.
Premo v. Moore, No. 09-658, No. 09-150, 562 U.S. ___(2011).
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/09-658.html. Randy Moore pled no-contest to felony
murder and was sentenced to twenty-five years imprisonment. Moore petitioned for
habeas corpus relief and argued that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to
recognize that his taped confession was obtained unconstitutionally. Even the state agreed
that the confession was invalid. The question facing the court was whether his counsel
should have moved to suppress the confession before allowing Moore to enter a plea.
Decision: The Supreme Court ruled that Moore did not have ineffective counsel after
concluding that Moore had not been prejudiced by his counsel’s actions. That was
because Moore had made other incriminating statements and accepting a plea deal took
life in prison and the death penalty off the table. Subject: Effective counsel, confessions.