Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. ___, 132 S.Ct. 1399 (U.S. Sup. Ct. March 21, 2012) (Justice Kennedy)
Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. ___, 132S.Ct. 1376 (U.S. Sup. Ct. March 21, 2012) (Justice Kennedy)

In these two companion decisions, a sharply divided Supreme Court held for the first time that criminal ...

In this, and its companion case, Missouri v. Frye, the Court held, by a 5-4 vote, that criminal defendants have a constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel during plea negotiations including when they reject pleas because of bad legal advice.

Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. ___, 132 S.Ct. 1399 ...

Here a sharply divided held that a federal habeas court may excuse a procedural default of an ineffective-assistance claim when the claim was not properly presented in state court due to an attorney’s errors in an initial-review collateral proceeding.

This is another highly fact-specific Supreme Court habeas corpus decision that ...

The 22-year sentence for the so-called "Millennium Bomber" is vacated and the case is remanded for resentencing, where the sentence was substantively unreasonable, based on the Ninth Circuit's definite and firm conviction that the district court committed a clear error of judgment in sentencing the defendant abased on several findings ...

Here the Court held that mere knowledge by a police dispatcher of information about a suspect, which was never communicated to police officers in the field, could not be imputed to the arresting officers under the “collective knowledge doctrine".

Responding to a 911 phone call that a black male was ...

This is a novel case in which the Government actually decided to oppose a Fifth Circuit decision in its favor and to support a convicted criminal in arguing that the jailer, not the judge, should determine whether a federal sentence could run consecutively or concurrently to a state sentence that ...

Here the Court held that a failure by a corporate insider to file a short-swing profit disclosure statement under § 16(a) of the securities laws does not indefinitely toll the two-year statute of limitations for recovery of such profits under § 16(b).

In this case, the Supreme Court held that ...

Here the Court held that a lawful permanent resident's right to reenter the U.S. after brief travel abroad, when that person was convicted of a crime, is governed by the laws in effect at the time of the conviction, not by the IIRIRA.

This case involved a question of statutory ...