DailyWrit

The Supreme Court today handed down an opinion in Begay v. US in which it held that drunk driving is not a violent felony as defined by particular sentencing regulations.
Justice Breyer authored a six-Justice majority opinion that concluded that drunk driving does not fall into a category of behavior that “otherwise involves conduct […]

The Court released a slew of cases last week, five to be specific, and the vast majority of press coverage has been focused on Riegel v. Medtronics. Riegel isn’t bad, but the case that really drew my attention was Danforth v. Minnesota.
Danforth first made news (within the overly excited blogosphere) when the Justices turn an […]

Justice Kennedy’s streak of being in the majority in 5-4 decisions has been snapped today with his dissenting vote (and opinion) in Ali v. Federal Bureau of Prisions.
Justice Thomas wrote the majority opinion and was joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Ginsburg. Justice Kennedy penned a dissent that was joined by […]

In Irizarry v. US (opinion below), the Court is asked to decide whether or not a district court must offer advance warning for an upward sentencing departure.
In 2000, Richard Irizarry’s wife moved from California to South Carolina and filed for divorce, claiming that Mr. Irizarry verbally and mentally abused her and their children during […]

During oral arguments in Gall v. US two weeks ago, the court discussed whether sentences that fell within guidelines are presumed to be reasonable. My earlier analysis of the case can be found here.
Justice Thomas has been a long-time critic of Judges who speak out during oral arguments only to argue with their colleagues. […]

On October 9, 2007, the Court will hear oral arguments in Watson v. US.
Watson revolves around the question of whether or not the presence of a firearm in a drug exchange consitutes ‘use’ as it applies to sentencing provisions. If an individual is convicted of using a firearm within the context of a drug deal, […]

On October 3, 2007, the Court will hear oral arguments in US v. Santos.
From the 1970’s through the 1990’s, Efrain Santos operated an illegal lottery in north-west Indiana. He was convicted of running an illegal gambling ring and laundering that money through his payment of runners and money collectors who were involved in his […]

On October 2, 2007, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Kimbrough v. US. Kimbrough centers around the 1986 federal law that imposes a “100:1 crack/powder ratio.” Under the law, a defendant caught with one amount of crack (rock) should receive a sentence similar to that of a defendant who was caught with a […]

[ October 2, 2007; ] On October 2, 2007, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Gall v. US. Brian Gall sold ecstasy at the University of Iowa for a few months in 2000. After cleaning up his act, he graduated, moved to Arizona, and started a job in the construction industry. Law enforcement officers came to him three-years […]

When scheduling cases for oral arguments, the court tries to give precedence to the cases that were granted certiorari first. For example, if Case A was granted cert. in February and Case B was granted cert. in April, the court would generally try to hear Case A first. This allows council enough time to prepare […]

The court today handed down three cases- Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Assn. v. Brentwood Academy, Tellabs v. Makor, and Rita v. US.
In Rita, the court held that sentences that fall within the sentencing guidelines can be presumptively reasonable. The ‘reasonableness’ test is an important test that appellate courts use to determine whether or not […]

In 1986, Congress adopted a 100:1 ratio for prosecuting crack cocaine and powder cocaine offenses. If I was caught dealing 10 grams crack to James, I would receive the same penalty that I would if I was caught dealing him a kilo of powder cocaine. The US Sentencing Committee has long tried to persuade Congress […]