Court to hear six new cases
on Jan 6, 2006 at 2:08 pm
The Supreme Court on Friday granted review in six new cases, including a test of the authority of police without a warrant to enter a home to stop violence they see happening, and a test of the right of parents of a disabled child to recover the money they spent to hire an expert non-lawyer to help them win a controversy over placing their child in school. The Court also will hear a case on the remedy for a violation of the Speedy Trial Act.
All of the cases are expected to be argued in April.
The Court took no action on one of the most important cases considered at the private Conference Friday — the Bush Administration’s appeal on the constitutionality of the 2003 law imposing a nationwide ban on so-called “partial-birth” abortions. That ban has been struck down by the 8th Circuit, and by two District Court judges in other circuits. The Justice Department had urged the Court to grant the case promptly. The fact that no action occurred Friday is not conclusive, however. (The case is Gonzalez v. Carhart, 05-380.)
The police home-entry case is an appeal by the state of Utah seeking clarification on how officers may react when the officers have observed — from outside a home — one individual punch another in the face. That case is Brigham City v. Stuart, et al. (05-502).
The disabled child’s case involves an appeal by a school district (Arlington School District v. Murphy, 05-18). The Justice Department urged the Court to hear the case, noting that lower courts are split on the issue of reimbursement of expert fees in cases under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
Here are brief summaries of the other four grants:
Zedner v. U.S. (05-5992), on whether the 70-day time limit under the Speedy Trial Act for bringing an accused to trial is subject to harmless-error analysis, when the Act appears to mandate the dismissal of the charges. The case also involves when the right to a speedy trial can be waived. Lower courts are split on the issues. The Justice Department, however, opposed Supreme Court review.
U.S. v. Gonzalez-Lopez (05-352), a Justice Department appeal testing whether a criminal conviction must be automatically reversed when a trial judge has denied an individual the right to a defense lawyer of his own choosing.
Empire Healthchoice v. McVeigh (05-200), raising the question of whether a government contractor providing health benefits for federal employeees may sue in federal court to enforce the terms of its contract with the government. The Solicitor General urged the Court to hear this case because of a lower court conflict on the issue.
Kircher v. Putnam Funds Trust (05-409), on the jurisdiction of a federal appeals court to review a trial judge’s order remanding to state court a case when the case had been shifted to federal court under the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998.
Following are details on some of the granted cases.
The Brigham City case:
In the early morning of July 23, 2000, police officers in Brigham City were sent to a local home after getting a complaint about a loud party. Arriving outside the home, four officers heard sounds that led them to conclude that there was a fight going on inside. They walked up to the house, and looked into the front window. They saw no signs of a fight.
Three officers went to the backyard fence, and again saw no fight. They decided that the fight was inside the back of the house, and two policeman walked to the back of the house to investigate. Looking through a window there, they saw four adults trying to restrain a juvenile against a refrigerator. The juvenile landed a punch on one of the adults, so the officers opened a screen door and announced their presence. They then went into the kitchen, and stepped between the combatants.
The adults told the officers to leave, and the officers then arrested them for disoirderly conduct, drunkenness, and contributing to a minor’s delinquency.
The accused moved to bar evidence of alcoholic consumption inside the house on the ground that the police entry violated the Fourth Amendment. A trial court did so, finding no exigent circumstances. Higher courts in Utah affirmed, finding the officers’ entry was not justified under Fourth Amendment warrant exceptions in situations of emergency aid or exigent circumstances.
The key issue in the appeal is whether this incident falls within the “emergency aid” exception, recognized in Mincey v. Arizona (1978).
The Arlington School District case:
Parents of a disabled boy placed the youth in a prviate school for disabled children in Amenia, N.Y., rather than in public schools. They sought tuition imbursement from the Arliington district, claiming that placement was the proper one under the federal law governing educational rights of disabled children. The courts ordered reimbursement of their tuition outlays.
The parents also sought reimbursement of money they had paid to an educaetionaol consultant. They won reimbursement of $8,650 of the total of $29,350 they had paid to the consultant.
The Second Circuit upheld the fee award, and the school district appealed, citing the conflict between the Second Circuit and three other Circuit Courts.
The Justice Department, asked for the government’s views, urged the Court to decide the issue, but contended that the Second Circuit was wrong.
The Zedner case:
Federal prosecutors accused Jacob Zedner of attempting to open accounts at several financial institutions with a counterfeit $10 million bond The bond had obvious mistakes, and one of the institutions called the Secret Service. Zedner was arrested, and the agents found three other counerfeit bonds, each for $10 million.
He was indicted on April 6, 1996, but did not go to trial promptly.
His counsel failed to appear for a time, and the District Court excluded from the time computation a period because the case was complex.
Zedner also asked for a continuance, but the judge said that would be allowed only if Zedner completely waived his speedy trial rights. He agreed and signed a waiver.
The government was ready for trial in January 1997, but Zedner’s lawyer asked for and received a continuance until May. Zender later underwent a psychiatric exam, and was found competent for trial.
In September 1997, he fired his lawyer and began representing himself. When the case was to begin, in October, the judge found Zedner not competent to stand trial, and ordered a new exam.
The matter dragged on over the competency issue, so on March 7, 2001, Zedner moved to dismiss the indictment, but that was denied. He spent several months in 2002 in a federal medical facility for examination.
Trial actually began on April 7, 2003 — almost exactly seven years after he was indicted. Zedner was convicted on six counts of attempting fraud, and was sentenced to 63 months in prison.
The Second Circuit rejected his claim of a violation of his speedy trial rights, but did order a new sentencing.
