This week's oral arguments -- chock full of constitutional law

[Volokh, Eugene]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marie P Evans [mailto:mevans at willamette.edu] 
> Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2002 11:28 PM
> To: Multiple recipients of list
> Subject: Supreme Court News 11/04/02 (Oral Arguments)
> 
> 
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT NEWS      2002-09
> Willamette Law Online - Willamette University College of Law
>  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> During the week of November 4, 2002, the United States 
> Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the six cases 
> summarized below.
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> 
> In this Issue:
> The Court will hear arguments on the following legal issues:
> 
> (1) FEDERALISM (Whether a Federal Statue Protecting Certain 
> Documents From Discovery in Federal and State Trials is a 
> Valid Exercise of Congressional Power Under the United States 
> Constitution)
> (2) DOUBLE JEOPARDY (Conviction of a Life Sentence Following 
> a Capital Sentence Proceeding Violates the Double Jeopardy Clause)
> (3) CRUEL & UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT (Challenges the 
> Constitutionality of the Severity of Punishment Provided by a 
> State Statute for a Nonviolent Crime that the Court May 
> Classify as a Misdemeanor)
> (4) CRUEL & UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT (Maintains the 
> Constitutionality of an Enhanced Sentence Provided by a State 
> Statute for a Nonviolent Crime that the Court May Classify as 
> a Misdemeanor) . . .
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> ORAL ARGUMENTS
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> 
> Pierce County v. Guillen
> Argued: 11/04/02
> No. 01-1229
> Court Below: 31 P.3d 628 (Wash. 2001)
> FullText: 
> http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=wa&vol=
> 2001_sc/68535-5&invol=3
> 
> FEDERALISM (Federal Statue Protecting Certain Documents From 
> Discovery in Federal and State Trials is a Valid Exercise of 
> Congressional Power Under the United States Constitution)
> 
> The issues in this case are (1) whether 23 U.S.C. § 409, a 
> federal statute which protects certain documents "compiled or 
> collected" in connection with certain federal highway safety 
> programs from discovery or admission in federal and state 
> trials, is a valid exercise of Congressional power under the 
> Supremacy, Spending, Commerce, or Necessary and Proper 
> Clauses of the United States Constitution and (2) whether 
> Washington Supreme Court's judgment was final or whether the 
> United States Supreme Court has jurisdiction to review by certiorari.
> 
> Mr. Guillen's wife was killed in an automobile accident in 
> 1996.TheCounty's traffic and accident reports indicated the 
> intersection where Mrs. Guillen was killed was particularly 
> hazardous. Mr. Guillen requested Pierce County (the County) 
> disclose the traffic and accident reports, but the County 
> claimed the reports were privileged under 23 U.S.C. § 409. 
> The lower court found that Congress violated state 
> sovereignty when it extended the § 409 privilege to traffic 
> and accident reports that are collected for local and state 
> purposes. The lower court stated that the §409 privilege 
> interfered with state tort law without showing a compelling 
> federal interest. The County argues that § 409 is proper 
> under the Commerce Clause because it fosters safety in 
> interstate channels. The County argues for certiorari because 
> the issue pertains to whether a federal statute is 
> constitutional, thus the scale should tip in favor of review. 
> [Summarized by Melody Harmon.]
> - - - - - - - - - -
> 
> Sattazahn v. Pa.
> Argued: 11/04/02
> No. 01-7574
> Court below: 763 A.2d 359 (Pa. 2000)
> Full Text: 
> http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/pennsylvaniastatecases/sup
> reme/j-64-2000mo.pdf
> 
> DOUBLE JEOPARDY (Conviction of a Life Sentence Following a 
> Capital Sentence Proceeding Violates the Double Jeopardy Clause)
> 
> The issue in this case is the whether the Double Jeopardy 
> Clause is violated when a defendant receives a life sentence 
> in his initial trial-like capital sentencing proceeding and 
> then is later subjected to successive capital sentencing 
> proceedings. In Sattazahn's initial trial, the jury was 
> deadlocked and unable to reach a verdict.  As a matter of 
> law, a life imprisonment sentence was imposed. On appeal, 
> Sattazahn obtained a reversal of his conviction, but was 
> convicted again of capital murder in a retrial and given the 
> death penalty. Sattazahn argues the imposition of a life 
> sentence after a capital sentencing proceeding that finds 
> guilt or innocence triggers the protections of the Double 
> Jeopardy Clause. Thus, Sattazahn argues because he was given 
> a life sentence in the initial trial, the judgment was final 
> and another conviction would violate the Double Jeopardy 
> Clause.  [Summarized by Melody Harmon.]
> - - - - - - - - - -
> 
> Ewing v. Cal.
> Argued:  11/05/02
> No. 01-6978
> Court Below:  California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate 
> District Full Text:  Unavailable
> 
> CRUEL & UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT (Challenges the Constitutionality 
> of the Severity of Punishment Provided by a State Statute for 
> a Nonviolent Crime that the Court May Classify as a Misdemeanor)
> 
> The issue in this case is whether the enhanced sentence of 
> life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for at 
> least 25 years for shoplifting, which is allowed under 
> California's "Three Strikes, and You're Out" statute, 
> violates the Eighth Amendment's protection against cruel and 
> unusual punishment.
> 
> A California trial court convicted Ewing of grand theft for 
> stealing three golf clubs from a pro golf shop.  In 
> California, the court may use discretion to sentence grand 
> theft as a misdemeanor or a felony.  The court chose a felony 
> sentence.  It held Ewing's crime also qualified as a third 
> strike under the "Three Strikes, and You're Out" (Three Strikes
> Statute) state statute since Ewing had previous felony 
> convictions.  The Three Strikes Statute provides for a 
> mandatory sentencing of life imprisonment without the 
> possibility of parole for at least twenty-five years.  The 
> California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, 
> affirmed the sentence in an unpublished opinion.  The 
> California Supreme Court in an unpublished decision denied 
> review.  On appeal to the United States Supreme Court, Ewing 
> argues that his sentence is grossly disproportionate to the 
> conviction of a nonviolent crime that the court may classify 
> as a misdemeanor. Therefore, his sentence violates the Eighth 
> and Fourteenth Amendments' protection against cruel and unusual
> punishment.    [Summarized by Kimberly Cooper.]
> - - - - - - - - - -
> 
> Lockyer v. Andrade
> Argued:  11/05/02
> No. 01-1127
> Court Below:  270 F.3d 743 (9th Cir. 2001)
> Full Text:  http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/9955691p.pdf
> 
> CRUEL & UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT (Maintains the Constitutionality 
> of an Enhanced Sentence Provided by a State Statute for a 
> Nonviolent Crime that the Court May Classify as a Misdemeanor)
> 
> The issues in this case is 1) whether the enhanced sentence 
> of life imprisonment without the possibility for parole for 
> at least 25 years for shoplifting, allowed under California's 
> "Three Strikes, and You're Out" statute, violates the Eighth 
> Amendment's protection against cruel and unusual punishment 
> and 2) whether Andreas is entitled to a writ of habeas corpus.
> 
> The trial court convicted Andrade of two counts of petty 
> theft for stealing videotapes from two different stores.  The 
> trial court also found Andrade had three prior serious or 
> violent felony convictions.  This placed Andrade within 
> California's "Three Strikes, and You're Out" statute which 
> imposed a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without the 
> possibility of parole for twenty-five years for each account 
> to be served consecutively.  The California Court of Appeal 
> affirmed the sentence and the California Supreme Court denied 
> hearing.  The United States District Court for the Central 
> District of California (the District Court) denied relief, 
> holding that the sentence was not of a cruel and unreasonable 
> punishment level.  The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 
> reversed the District Court's judgment and remanded the case. 
>  Lockyer, California's Attorney General, appeals to the 
> United States Supreme Court making three arguments.  One, the 
> sentence does not meet the cruel and unusual punishment 
> level.  Two, the federal court does not have authority to 
> provide relief since the case does not involve a state's 
> unreasonable application of a clearly established federal 
> law.  Three, the federal court used the wrong standard of 
> review in deciding to provide relief. 
> [Summarized by Kimberly Cooper.]
. . .
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/conlawprof/attachments/20021104/226e58c0/attachment.htm