Equal protection requires granting two crack cocaine defendants retroactive relief from racially discriminatory mandatory minimum sentences imposed on them in 2005, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in reversing judgment.
A suspect’s decision to remain silent behind a locked bedroom door did not amount to an objection that would override his wife’s consent to a warrantless search of the premises by police, the Colorado Supreme Court has ruled in reversing a suppression order.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a Michigan murder defendant’s due process rights were not violated when a change in state law following his 1994 conviction prevented him from reasserting a diminished-capacity defense when he later won a new trial.
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether a tenant who previously objected to a warrantless search of an apartment must be personally present and objecting to prevent a search when police officers later ask a co-tenant for consent to search.
Police conducting a probation search of an apartment could examine the contents of a purse belonging to the probationer’s girlfriend, the California Court of Appeal has ruled in affirming a drug conviction.
A call spreadsheet evidencing a robbery defendant’s cellphone communications was admissible at trial under the business records exception to the hearsay rule, the California Court of Appeal has ruled in affirming a conviction.
The Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment did not require the deletion of parole restrictions on consecutive sentences that cumulatively exceeded a juvenile defendant’s life expectancy, the Louisiana Supreme Court has ruled in reversing judgment.
A psychotherapist sought by the defense in a juvenile proceeding was not required to comply with a state law requiring the reporting of child abuse to authorities, the California Court Appeal has ruled in reversing judgment.
A drug defendant was not required to show bad faith in order to be entitled to an adverse-inference jury instruction as a remedy for the government’s destruction of evidence, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in granting a new trial.