South Carolina Criminal Defense Blog

I haven't had a chance to read the opinions yet, but in the meantime, from SCOTUS Blog:

The Court has released the opinion in Van de Kamp v. Goldstein (07-854), on whether supervising district attorneys possess absolute immunity against claims they failed to ensure line prosecutors disclosed constitutionally required information to criminal defendants. The ruling below, which held for the criminal defendant, is reversed and remanded. Justice Breyer wrote the opinion for a unanimous Court. The opinion is available here.

The Court has released the opinion in Arizona v. Johnson (07-1122), on whether, in the context of a vehicular stop for a minor traffic infraction, an officer may conduct a pat-down search of a passenger when the officer has an articulable basis to believe the passenger might be armed and presently dangerous, but had no reasonable grounds to believe that the passenger is committing, or has committed, a criminal offense. The ruling below, which held for the defendant, is reversed and remanded. Justice Ginsburg wrote the opinion for a unanimous Court. The opinion is available here.

More power for police, more immunity for prosecutors. As Robert Guest puts it, "Welcome to SCOTUSland, where violating the constitution merits no penalty, yet driving without a seat belt warrants arrest."

In another opinion released today, Nelson v. U.S., the Supreme Court re-affirmed that federal courts cannot presume that a sentence within the guidelines range is reasonable. Doug Berman has an analysis at Sentencing Law and Policy:

Specifically, with Gall and Kimbrough and now Spears and Nelson, I sense that the Justices (perhaps save Justices Breyer and Alito) are persistently troubled by how prominent the federal sentencing guidelines remain in both district and circuit sentencing decision-making. Through Spears and now Nelson, the Justices have made extra efforts to say to lower courts that they need not, perhaps even should not, keep gravitating toward the guidelines. Though one would have hoped this message came through loud and clear through the rulings in Gall and Kimbrough, it is important to see the Justices willingness to keep smacking down the circuits that seem so unwilling to get with the full 3553(a) post-Booker program.