Five Supreme Court Cases to Watch

The U.S. Supreme Court begins its new term today, and there are several key criminal cases before the justices. We'll be watching closely to see how new Justice Sonia Sotomayor comes down on key criminal issues and whether the conservative bloc of the court further consolidates along ideological lines. It should be an interesting term. Here are five cases to keep your eye on this term:

-- Graham v. Florida and Sullivan v. Florida -- two cases filed by Florida state prisoners sentenced to life without parole as juveniles. The cases challenge life without parole as a cruel and unusual punishment for kids. I've written about these upcoming cases here and here. The U.S. is virtually alone in handing down this harsh punishment; we have 2,500 people serving life for crimes committed and juveniles while the rest of the world only has 12 such prisoners. I hope the court continues to apply the logic it used in overturning the death penalty for juveniles in Roper v. Simmons, when the justices looked abroad to find that our system of punishing kids had become the definition of unusual. Both cases will be argued November 9.

-- Pottawattamie County et al. v. McGhee et al. -- the court will consider cases brought by two wrongfully convicted defendants arguing that they have the right to sue prosecutors who fabricate evidence of guilt or intentionally withhold evidence of innocence. The prosecutors in these cases argue that they are protected by absolute immunity, even as they manufactured false evidence, and the National DA association, the U.S. Solicitor General and Attorneys General of 27 states have their back. Radley Balko has a thorough -- and scathing -- examination of this case at Reason Magazine. Oral arguments are set for November 4.

-- U.S. v Comstock -- The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act is a federal law passed in 2006 that strengthened restrictions and requirements nationwide on convicted sex offenders. Among other things, the law gives judges the power to continue the incarceration of sex offenders are they have served their sentences if the judge determines that the person is a threat to society. In Comstock, brought by five defendants affected by the law, federal courts struck down these extended sentences as unconstitutional because they exceed Congress' powers and deny due process to defendants who have served their sentences. The Supreme Court will review the lower courts' findings.

-- Briscoe v. Virginia -- Last term, the court decided 5-4 in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts that criminal defendants have the right to cross-examine forensic examiners who conducted laboratory tests on evidence in their cases. Briscoe challenges the extent of the Melendez-Diaz decision, reviewing a new Virginia law that allows prosecutors to present crime lab reports without calling the expert as a witness but allowing defendants to call the expert.

Photo by dbking