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. Instructors may want
to include these at the appropriate place in lectures. They can also serve as valuable discussion
material and have been added to the appropriate chapter end materials in this manual as well.
The cases are summarized here, as are other still pending criminal cases from the current
Supreme Court term. Each summary identifies the relevant subject area the decision impacts.




Connick v. Thompson, No. 09-571, 563 U.S. ___ (2011). http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/09-571.html
John Thompson spent fourteen years on death row for a crime he did not commit. He was
freed after blood evidence surfaced that exonerated him. Thompson then sued the district
attorney who oversaw the assistant district attorney who failed to turn the evidence over
to Thompson’s defense team, claiming that at the very least, Connick, the district
attorney, had failed to properly train his subordinates on evidentiary matters. A jury
awarded Thompson $14 million dollars, presumably one million for each year he spent
on death row knowing he was innocent of the crime he had been convicted of
committing. The government appealed the verdict. Decision: In a 5-4 split decision, the
U.S. Supreme Court concluded that the district attorney was not responsible for the
failure to properly train his subordinate when the lack of training resulted in an isolated
wrongful conviction. Subject: Public corruption.
Wall v. Kohli, No. 09-868, 563 U.S. ___ (2011). 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.
Michigan v. Bryant, No. 09-150, 562 U.S. ___(2011). A Michigan trial court convicted
Richard Perry Bryant of second-degree murder, among other charges. Bryant challenged
the admission of the victim's statements at trial for violating his Sixth Amendment right
of confrontation. The victim told police who arrived on the scene that Mr. Bryant shot
him, but died shortly thereafter. Bryan therefore did not have a chance to challenge the
dead man’s allegations. Decision: In a 6-2 decision, the Supreme Court concluded that
the police were dealing with an emergency rather than gathering evidence and could
therefore use the statement at trial. Subject: Sixth amendment confrontation clause.
Harrington v. Richter, No. 09-587, No. 09-150, 562 U.S. ___(2011). 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). Randy Moore pled nocontest 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.
McDonald v. Chicago, No. 08-1521, 562 U.S. ___(2011). Several suits were filed against
Chicago and Oak Park in Illinois challenging their gun bans after the Supreme Court
issued its opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller. In that case, the Supreme Court held
that a District of Columbia handgun ban violated the Second Amendment. There, the
Court reasoned that the law in question was enacted under the authority of the federal
government and, thus, the Second Amendment was applicable. Here, plaintiffs argued
that the Second Amendment should also apply to the states when they enact laws
regulating the possession of guns. Decision: The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the
Second Amendment right to bear arms also applies to states. Subject: Right to bear arms.
Schilling v. United States, No. 08-1394, 562 U.S. ___(2011). Jeffrey Skilling was the
former C.E.O. of Enron. He was convicted of conspiracy, securities fraud, making false
representations to auditors, and insider trading. On appeal, Skilling argued that the jury
was biased and pre-trial publicity had made it impossible to obtain an impartial jury.
Decision: The Supreme Court held that pretrial publicity and community prejudice did
not prevent Skilling from obtaining a fair trial. He did not establish a presumption of
juror prejudice or actual bias. The trial was held in Houston, a large city with many
eligible for jury service from which the parties could choose unbiased jurors. Plus, the
court noted that a biased jury most likely would not have done what this one did – acquit
Skilling of nine criminal counts. Subject: Right to jury of one’s peers.