« Interesting discussion of contributions and legacy of Jeremy Bentham | Main | A snippet of sex offender stories in the Sunday papers »

September 27, 2009

A few SCOTUS scouting pieces to gear up for the new season

The new SCOTUS season is about to kick into high gear, with the Justices likely to announce a bunch of new cert grants this coming week and with a full slate of arguments to start the following week.  For sentencing fans, there are a lot of notable cases to watch in the cert pool and already on the Court's docket.  Of course, SCOTUSblog is the place to go for cert scouting, as evidenced by these three recent Petitions to Watch posts:

In addition, I enjoyed this Term preview piece in the National Law Journal by Marcia Coyle, which is headlined "High Court Justices to Take Up Lawyer Ethics, Errors: Six cases on the calendar will have direct consequences for the practice of law."  Here is how the piece starts:

How lawyers do their jobs — from the type of advice they give clients to the calculation of fees — moves to the fore in the new U.S. Supreme Court term in six cases that could dramatically alter the day-to-day practice of law.

The justices in recent terms typically have taken two or three cases — and sometimes none  — involving the legal profession.  The six cases this term have roots in the First Amendment, habeas corpus, bankruptcy law, civil procedure, privileged materials and the Sixth Amendment.

Readers are, of course, welcomed and encouraged to highlight SCOTUS cases and SCOTUS would-be cases they are watching closely in the comments.

September 27, 2009 at 10:20 AM | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference A few SCOTUS scouting pieces to gear up for the new season:


I certainly noticed that the 6th circuit is well represented in scotusblog's latest cases to watch post.

Posted by: Soronel Haetir | Sep 27, 2009 11:57:47 AM

I thought the double jeopardy cases were the most interesting. I am sympathetic to the claim that judge directed verdicts are inconsistent with sound constitutional principles. I think that's the strongest part of the Michigan case. Likewise, in the case from CA I think that the DJ clause the majority interprets it much too narrowly. In short, I think that only a trial before a jury puts the defendant in jeopardy but once put in front of the jury it resolves all the jeopardy.

The only case that was interesting was the sex offender case from AZ but only because I thought the first part of that opinion was so obviously wrong. The burden of poof is on the government to prove the offense.

Posted by: Daniel | Sep 27, 2009 3:26:49 PM

I meant to say the only *other* case that was interesting.

Posted by: Daniel | Sep 27, 2009 3:28:20 PM

I think the case out of Washington is also interesting. On whether being found guilty of a lesser included offense when no verdict was returned on the greater charge terminates jeopardy for the greater charge.

That case is not really in the cases to watch section though, down at the bottom where they list cases where they have a personal interest.

Posted by: Soronel Haetir | Sep 27, 2009 4:09:13 PM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB