Cases being heard this term at the U.S. Supreme Court once again fail to address Fourth Amendment claims for criminal defendants.
The Fourth Amendment is part of the federal constitution dealing with unreasonable searches and seizures. The amendment is used to suppress evidence for violations in criminal cases - but it is also used for civil lawsuits based on constitutional violations where a person was not charged.
One case that has been granted review is Barnes v. Felix, which deals with civil rights claims in federal court under a federal statute giving a cause of action to sue. The main issue is what can be considered when force is used leading to a potential Fourth Amendment violation. Federal circuit courts are split on whether consideration is of the moments just before the moment of a threat that prompted the use of force or all the events leading to it, known as the totality of the circumstances. The case will address that split in federal appeal courts.
However, this case relates to civil action by those who sue for damages and how those claims are considered. It does not deal with the exclusionary rule or how that rule is used in a criminal prosecution.
One of the most important cases for criminal defendants this term is Glossop v. Oklahoma, a case about a discovery violation involving an important state witness and a murder. The witness implicated Glossop. It is undisputed that the prosecution hid evidence about the witness having seen a psychiatrist and the witness being diagnosed with a condition that made him potentially violent. The main questions to be addressed are whether the failure to disclose and correct false testimony the witness gave was a due process violation, whether the entirety of the trial evidence needs to be considered for the discovery violation, and whether the whole trial is so infected with errors that Glossop, who is facing execution (which has been stayed pending this appeal), should get a new trial. The state no longer wishes to defend the conviction and the court appointed a person to specifically argue their abandoned position / case. Oral argument has already been held and a decision is awaited.
The lack of state-related criminal cases is also notable, and pointed out by court observers. Other dockets dealing with issues involving federal statutes.
Delligatti v. United States involves a federal statute about whether violence can be interpreted for an offense involving bodily injury for someone simply failing to act. Rivers v. Lumpkin deals with federal habeas corpus review (also a federal statute) and a procedural issue about whether filings can be amended before a final appellate decision. Kousisis v. United States involves interpretation of the federal wire fraud statute. Hewett v. United States and Duffey v. United States are both cases about a federal sentencing statute. Esteras v. United States deals with federal violations of supervised release.
Decisions are generally released before the term ends in June or July after oral arguments are held.