|
===========================================================
Oral argument previews:
Prepared by the liibulletin editorial board:
< http://www.law.cornell.edu/bulletin/04board.htm >
=============================================================
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, JURY SELECTION, PEREMPTORY
CHALLENGES, BATSON V. KENTUCKY, JURY BIAS
Johnson v. California (04-6964)
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/04-6964.html
Oral argument: April 18, 2005
Appealed from: Court of Appeal of California, First
Appellate District
Following his murder conviction by an all-white jury,
African-American Jay Shawn Johnson argues that the
prosecutor improperly used peremptory challenges to
remove all African-Americans from the pool of
prospective jurors. This case raises the question of
how strong a case a criminal defendant must make to
show that a prosecutor is exercising race-based
peremptory challenges before a trial court will demand
an explanation from the prosecutor. Both the United
States Supreme Court and the California Supreme Court
have previously held that race-based peremptory
challenges violate the Constitution, and both have
held that after defendants make a prima facie case of
discriminatory challenges, trial judges should weigh
the case against the prosecutor's explanation. In this
case the Court will consider just how a strong a case
the defendant must make to be considered 'prima facie'
and trigger an order for an explanation.
===========================================================
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, CAPITAL CASE, HABEAS CORPUS,
GUILTY PLEA, DUE PROCESS, VOLUNTARINESS, GROUNDS TO
VACATE
Bradshaw v. Stumpf (04-637)
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/04-637.html
Oral argument: April 19, 2004
Appealed from: 6th Circuit
John Stumpf and his accomplice, Clyde Wesley, were
convicted of the murder of Mary Jane Stout. Stumpf, in
his appeal to the Supreme Court, argues that the
prosecutor unfairly used inconsistent theories to
prove that both he and Wesley were guilty for the
murder -- even though a single shot was used to kill
Stout. Stumpf thus claims his rights under the Due
Process Clause of the Constitution were violated.
Stumpf also argues that his guilty plea at trial was
entered unknowingly and involuntarily because he did
not understand the elements of the crime. The Supreme
Court, in making its decisions, will have to address
the role of the prosecutor in a criminal proceeding,
the rights of the defendant under the Due Process
Clause, and the extent to which a defendant can later
invalidate his earlier plea of guilty.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Previews are archived at http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/
Recent Supreme Court decisions are archived at
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/ (in HTML versions prepared
by the LII and the original PDF files received from the Court)
Help support this free service: http://www.law.cornell.edu/donors/
You are currently subscribed to liibulletin as:
bernie@fantasyfarm.com To unsubscribe send a blank email to
leave-liibulletin-8290T@lists.law.cornell.edu. Alternatively, you can visit
http://liibulletin.law.cornell.edu to end or alter your
subscription or to share this resource with others.
|
| |
| |
|
