The Kelley Institute
Law of Lawyering
Supreme Court Review
Cases tagged as: 2012 Term
Boyer v. Louisiana
The Court initially granted cert to examine the defendant's right to a speedy trial where the indigent defendant required state counsel and where the court believed only issues of a lack of state funding for death penalty-qualified attorneys fees caused an almost seven year delay for trial. The court, however, dismissed 5-4 the writ of cert as improvidently granted (DIG) because of discovered other events that delayed trial, including defense continuance requests, Hurricane Rita, and pre-trial motions among others.
Chaidez v. U.S.
133 S. Ct. 1103 (2013) (PDF)
The Court held that the Court's decision in Padilla v. Kentucky, holding that criminal defendants receive ineffective assistance of counsel under the 6th Amendment when their attorneys fail to advise them that pleading guilty to an offense will subject them to deportation, does not apply retroactively to cases already final on direct review.
Clapper v. Amnesty International USA
133 S. Ct. 1138 (2013) (PDF)
The Court reversed and remanded, 5-4, deciding that respondents lacked Article III standing to challenge FISA Amendments Act of 2008, 50 U.S.C. Section 1881(1)(a). The Court thus did not determine whether the federal wiretapping anti-terrorism program interferes with attorneys' ethical obligations.
Gunn v. Minton
133 S. Ct. 1059 (2013) (PDF)
In a 9-0 decision, the Court held that 28 U.S.C. Section 1338(a), which provides for exclusive federal jurisdiction over cases "arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents," does not deprive the state courts of subject matter jurisdiction over state law claim alleging legal malpractice in patent cases.
Related tag(s): 2012 Term,
Maracich v. Spears
The Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that lawyers violated drivers' privacy rights as designated by statute when they gathered personal information from state motor vehicle records to recruit prospective plaintiffs for lawsuits.
Marshall v. Rodgers
133 S. Ct. 1446 (2013) (PDF)
Supreme Court held that petitioner’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel was not violated when state court failed to appoint an attorney to help him file a motion for new trial, given that petitioner had waived his right to an attorney on three previous occasions. The Ninth Circuit’s holding that respondent’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated was not supported by clearly established federal law
Ryan v. Gonzalez
133 S. Ct. 696 (2013) (PDF)
Alongside Tibbals v. Carter, the Court held that neither 18 U.S.C Section 3599 nor 18 U.S.C Section 4241 provides a right to suspend the prisoner's federal habeas corpus proceedings.
Salinas v. Texas
The Court held 5-4 that a prosecutor was not barred by the Fifth Amendment to mention in trial,as evidence of possible guilt, a defendant's silence and refusal to answer police questions before the defendant was placed into custody or read his Miranda Rights. The Court ruled that the defendant must expressly invoke his privilege not to incriminate himself in response to officers' questions.
Sebelius v. Cloer
The Court ruled unanimously that an untimely National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act claim may qualify for an award of attorney's fees if it is filed in good faith and there is a reasonable basis for the claim.
Tibbals v. Carter
133 S. Ct. 696 (2013) (PDF)
Alongside Ryan v. Gonzales, the Court held that neither 18 U.S.C Section 3599 nor 18 U.S.C Section 4241 provides a right to suspend the prisoner's federal habeas corpus proceedings.
Trevino v. Thaler
133 S. Ct. 1911 (2013) (PDF)
The good cause exception recognized in Martinez v. Martin will apply when a state’s procedural framework, by reason of its design and operation, makes it unlikely that a defendant will have a meaningful opportunity to raise on direct appeal a claim that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance.
U.S. v. Davila
133 S. Ct. 2139 (2013) (PDF)
When a federal judge participates in plea discussions, contrary to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c), the defendant's guilty plea does not demand automatic vacatur if there is no evidence in the record of prejudice to the defendant’s decision to plead guilty.