Criminal Law & Procedure at the Supreme Court—A Recap of OT25
This term, several important questions of criminal law and procedure reached the Supreme Court, ranging from digital privacy and criminal venue to appeal waivers and capital sentencing.
In Chatrie v. United States, the Court held that law enforcement conducts a Fourth Amendment search when it obtains a person’s cell-phone location history from a company through a geofence warrant.
In Abouammo v. United States, the Court unanimously held that a defendant charged under 18 U.S.C. § 1519 with falsifying a document to obstruct a federal investigation must be tried in the district where the alleged falsification occurred, not in a different district where the investigation was based.
In Hamm v. Smith, the Court dismissed as improvidently granted a capital case concerning whether and how courts may consider multiple IQ scores when evaluating a claim that a defendant is intellectually disabled and therefore ineligible for execution under the Eighth Amendment.
And in Hunter v. United States, the Court held that appeal waivers are generally enforceable but recognized a “miscarriage of justice” exception for egregious sentencing errors that would bring the judicial system into disrepute.
Join us for a webinar breaking down these decisions, the separate opinions, and what they may mean for the criminal justice system.
Featuring:
- Matthew Cavedon, Director, Project on Criminal Justice, Cato Institute
- Kent Scheidegger, Legal Director & General Counsel, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation
- (Moderator) Marc Levin, Chief Policy Counsel, Council on Criminal Justice and Senior Advisor, Right on Crime
*******
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
