![handle is hein.journals/crijust11 and id is 1 raw text is:
JUST] CE
* S 6 S - S *0
Coming Soon - Criminal Law
Certs Before the U.S. Supreme
Court
By William W. Greenhaigh
Note: William W. Greenhaigh is a Professor of Law at
Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, D.C. -He is
the immediate past chairperson of the Criminal Justice Section
and currently serves as a member of its governing Council.
For a number of years, I have analyzed the writs on which
the U.S. Supreme Court has granted certiorari in order to de-
termine ahead of time what they may, or may not, decide with
respect to criminal law issues. The questions presented to
the Court for its 1983-84 term, as I view them, are set forth
below - excerpted from my complete analysis of pending
cases, which was far too lengthy (500 pp.) for inclusion in this
small space. I believe the briefs and arguments presented in
the following cases will be the most important that have come
before the Court in the last 10 years.
FOURTH AMENDMENT
Colorado v. Quintero, No. 82-1711
657 P.2d 948 (Colo. 1983) Question presented: Whether the
Colorado Supreme Court mistakenly applied the exclusionary
rule to an undisputed good-faith seizure of stolen property.
Massachusetts v. Sheppard No. 82-963
387 Mass. 488 (1982) Question presented: Whether the fourth
amendment requires the inflexible application of the exclu-
sionary rule when a police officer has reasonably and in good
faith relied upon a search warrant to seize items specified in
the warrant application, but the warrant is subsequently in-
validated for judicial error in failing to specify the items in the
warrant itself.
United States v. Leon No. 82-1771
Unpublished (9th Cir. 1983) Question presented: Whether the
exclusionary rule should be modified so as not to bar admis-
sion of evidence seized as a result of a reasonable, good-faith
reliance on a search warrant that is subsequently held to be
invalid. Whether the Court will address the good-faith excep-
tion issue presented by this case will depend on the Court's
determination as to whether the decision in Gates is to be ap-
plied retroactively. It Gates is not viewed as a decision that
clearly breaks with the past (see United States v. Johnson,
_ U.S. , 102 S. Ct. 2579, 2587), the totality of the
circumstances test of Jones would apply. If the Court deter-
mines that Gates is to be retroactively applied and if the Court
finds the warrant here to be supported by probable cause
(which would appear likely after comparing the affidavit in the
warrant application of the present case to the affidavit in Jo-
nes,) the good-faith exception issue need not be addressed.
Michigan v. Clifford No. 82-357
Unpublished (Mich. Ct. App. 1982) (per curiam) Questions
presented: Whether a warrantless entry to determine the origin
of a fire made at the first available time after the flames have
been extinguished violates the fourth and fourteenth amend-
(Continued On Page 6)
Ocoher Council Meeting in Hilton lead, SC.
The fall meetng of the Criminal Justice Section e
Concil will 30e hld October 2i9-30 at ariot S Hilton
Hoed iesrt. Alt Section ember aire invited to attend
the- btusiness mreeting and social activities being
p-lanned. Among agend a iems is a proposed principle
o the use of hearsay in then grand justandards for
lawY enforcement access o recods a progress report
on eseairch o eligbility nd reco'spent qlestions in
the provision of indigent d efense , a a proposal from
the ABA's Individual Rights, & Responsibilities Se~ction
or a joine ponec on death pennaly defense. Contact
the wcion's staff ofAices or a complete agenda and
Aeting intformeratiern
Committees Gear Up for Action:
Tough, New Issues to Be Tackled
Some 800 Criminal Justice Section members are ser-
ving on 30 CJS committees this year. They were ap-
pointed in August by Section Chairperson Richard H.
Kuh of Warshaw Burstein Cohen Schlesinger & Kuh in
New York City. Kuh succeeded William W. Greenhagh
as chairperson after the Section's annual meeting in
Atlanta.
Among new committees organized by Kuh are those
on Prosecutorial Discretion, Providing Defense Services
(indigent defense), and Drunk Driving. New committee
chairs convened during the annual meeting to discuss
tentative work plans. A sampling of these plans ap-
pears below.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE ISSUES (Calvin L. Fox,
Assistant Attorney General for the State of Florida,
Miami, FL - 305/377-5441) Work will continue on pro-
j ects including ineffective assistance of counsel claims
at the appellate level; a proposed manual on litigating
habeas corpus claims; a report on the need for a
national court of review; and a review of appellate
backlog in the Circuit Courts of Appeal.
CRIMINAL TAX CASES (Terry P. Segal, Segal,
Moran & McMahon, Boston, MA - 617/720-4444)
Committee members will provide input into a project
designed to tighten disclosure of federal tax returns to
state prosecutors. Possible amendments to Rule 6(e) of
the F.R.Cr.P. will also be considered.
DRUNK DRIVING (Judge David A. Horowitz,
Superior Court, Van Nuys, CA - 213/901-3533) A
survey on how the problem is being handled in the
various states and in other countries will be conducted.
(Continued On Page 2)](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/crijust11&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most