FEDERAL MAGISTRATES MAY PRESIDE OVER JURY SELECTION

The United States Supreme Court has held that a United States Magistrate may preside over selection of a criminal jury, rather than a Federal District Court Judge, if the Defendant's lawyer consents. In Gonzalez v. United States, the Court held that there was no reversible error in such an instance, even though consent to have the Magistrate select the jury was never given from the Defendant; the Defendant's criminal defense lawyer had given consent to the procedure.

The Court held that consent from the attorney is sufficient and that there is no need to canvass the Defendant and determine if the Defendant consents to the procedure. Click here to read the Court's 8-1 decision.

STATE LAW VIOLATIONS DO NOT NECESSARILY EQUATE TO CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that Virginia officers did not violate the Fourth Amendment when they arrested a man for driving on a suspended license and eventually discovered narcotics. In Virginia v. Moore the Court considered whether the constitution was violated by the arrest even though state law only allowed for the issuance of a citation.

The Court, without dissent, held that violations of state law do not necessarily equal a constitutional violation as the meaning and breadth of state laws are different than that of the constitution. Accordingly, the extent to which a state statute provides protection does not mean that the constitution must provide the same protection.

Click here to read the Court's opinion. Click here to learn more about narcotics charges.

U.S. SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS KENTUCKY LETHAL INJECTIONS

The United States Supreme Court has upheld the lethal injection method by which Kentucky imposes the death penalty. In Baze v. Rees, the Court considered a challenge to the method by which death was imposed. The Appellants claimed that there was a risk that proper procedures would not be followed and, as a result, unnecessary pain would incurred in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The Court rejected this argument and stated that in order to hold a method unconstitutional there must be an "objectively intolerable risk of harm." Given that the injections were administered by trained personnel, with certain levels of experience, the risk of harm was not so great as to justify holding the practice unconstitutional.

Click here to read the Supreme Court's opinion.

Given that the Supreme Court is the last potential appeal for these defendants, it appears that execution is imminent. To learn more about criminal appeals, click here.