Two associates from Sullivan and Cromwell, a prominent New York law firm, agreed to represent Mr. Maples without charge.  However the two associates subsequently left the firm, and when the Alabama court sent two copies of a ruling in Mr. Maples’ case to the firm’s mailroom it sent them back unopened.  The firm had not notified the court or the mailroom that new lawyers had stepped in.  Furthermore, it appears the firm’s name did not appear on the papers it submitted in Alabama.

Mr. Maples has been unable to persuade the Alabama courts and the federal appeals court in Atlanta to waive the deadline for filing an appeal in his case.  The federal appeals court was not persuaded to waive the deadline despite the fact that the Alabama court did not send a copy of the ruling to Mr. Maples, stating in its opinion that, “Maples never requested the clerk to give him personal notice in addition to his counsel.”

Mr. Maples, through another pro bono attorney, has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to hear his case.  The 11th Circuit opinion is available here

Under current law, possession of 5 grams of crack triggers a mandatory minimum five-year prison sentence.  The same mandatory sentence applies to a person convicted of trafficking 500 grams of powder cocaine.  The compromise bill would reduce the ratio between crack and powder cocaine from 100:1 to 20:1 and directs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to enhance penalties for aggravating factors like violence or bribery of a law enforcement officer.

President Obama addressed the sentencing disparities between federal crack and powder cocaine offenses during his presidential campaign and is expected to sign the bill.

Justice Ginsburg, writing for the majority, said the law must be limited to the core offenses of bribes and kickbacks.  Justice Ginsburg wrote, “Because Skilling’s misconduct entailed no bribe or kickback, he did not conspire to commit honest-services fraud under our confined construction” of the law.

In another significant ruling the justices instructed the lower courts to reconsider the conviction of Conrad Black, the newspaper executive convicted of defrauding his media company, Hollinger International.  In Black et. al. v. United States, the court held that its opinion in Skilling on the scope of the honest services law renders the jury instructions in Black on that law incorrect.

The decisions may have implications for cases involving politicians as well, including Gov. Rod Blagojevich of Illinois, whose trial is underway, and Joseph Bruno, a prominent New York politician who was convicted of federal corruption charges last December.

Skilling v. United States is available here

Black et. al. v. United States is available here

Although both offenses were misdemeanors under state law, federal authorities argued that a second drug offense counted as an aggravated felony under federal law.  Writing for seven justices, Justice Stevens said, “a 10-day sentence for the unauthorized possession of a trivial amount of a prescription drug” is at odds with the ordinary meaning of “aggravated felony” requiring deportation under 1101(a)(43).

Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder available here

Near the end of the questioning, one officer asked Thompkins whether he believed in God and he said “yes.”  The officer then asked “do you pray to God?”  Again Thompkins responded “yes.”  The officer asked, “do you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy down?”  Thompkins said “yes” and then looked away.  He refused to make a written confession and he refused to sign a Miranda waiver form.  The one word confession was used at Thompkins’ trial and he was convicted.

Having lost his appeal in state court, Thompkins’ conviction was eventually overturned in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit which ruled that Thompkins had not waived his right to silence,  The Court found that Thompkins’ continued silence through the almost three hour long interview indicated that he did not want to waive his rights.

Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, said that wasn’t enough.  Kennedy concluded that “Thompkins did not say that he wanted to remain silent or that he did not want to talk to police.  Had he made either of these simple, unambiguous statements, he would have invoked his ‘right to cut off questioning’.  Here he did neither, so he did not invoke his right to remain silent.”

Berghuis v. Thompkins opinion available here

“Life without parole sentences share some characteristics with death sentences that are shared by no other sentences. The State does not execute the offender sentenced to life without parole, but the sentence alters the offender’s life by a forfeiture that is irrevocable.  It deprives the convictof the most basic liberties without giving hope of restora-tion, except perhaps by executive clemency — the remote possibility of which does not mitigate the harshness of the sentence….” Justice Kennedy wrote in his majority opinion.

Here is a link to the Graham opinion.

The Court can function with fewer than its full membership of nine, but does not like to do so.  With only 8 justices there is a significant chance of splitting 4-4.  In that situation. the lower court ruling that has been reviewed is simply upheld, without an opinion and without setting any precedent.

Among the potential nominees to the Stevens seat are U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan; a federal circuit court judge from Chicago, Diane P. Wood; and a federal circuit court judge in Washington, D.C., Merrick B. Garland.

Text of Justice Steven’s retirement letter to President Obama is found here

When Mr. Padilla asked about the consequences of pleading guilty he was told by his lawyer that he did not need to worry about his immigration status since he had been in the country for so many years. When he faced deportation, Mr. Padilla argued that he pleaded guilty only because of that erroneous advice. The Supreme Court of Kentucky in rejecting his claim said Mr. Padilla’s right to effective assistance of counsel did not apply because deportation was merely a “collateral” consequence of his conviction.

Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for a 5-member majority, said judges used to have considerable discretion about whether a noncitizen should be deported after being convicted of a crime. Because much of that discretion has been taken away, correct legal advice is more important than before for immigrants. Justice Stevens said it was wrong to dismiss deportation as a “collateral” issue because deportation is nearly automatic in many cases.

Justice Alito issued a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Roberts. They would have limited the rule to prohibit only completely incorrect legal advice. Justice Scalia dissented, joined by Justice Thomas, writing that the Sixth Amendment guarantees the defendant a lawyer only for the defense of the criminal case and not for advice regarding any collateral matters.

Padilla v. Kentucky is available here

Writing for the majority, Justice Melton said the trial court was correct to appoint local public defenders, in spite of the fact that one of these attorneys had a caseload exceeding four hundred and had not maintained the certification necessary to defend death penalty cases.

Writing in dissent, Justice Thompson stated, “If the state wants to seek the death penalty against an indigent defendant, it must provide adequate funds for a full and vigorous defense.  The state cannot shirk this responsibility because it is experiencing budgetary constraints.”  Justice Thompson added, “The bottom line is that the state should not be allowed to fully arm its prosecutors while it hamstrings the defense and blames defendant for any resultant delay.”

Weis v. The State