Supreme Court Oral Arguments for Wednesday the 21st, 2018
16-9493 ROSALES-MIRELES V. UNITED STATES
DECISION BELOW: 850 F.3d 246 CERT. GRANTED 9/28/2017
QUESTION PRESENTED: In United· States v. Olano, this Court held that, under the fourth prong of plain error review, “[t]he Court of Appeals should correct a plain forfeited error affecting substantial rights if the error ‘seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” 507 U.S. 725, 736 (1993). To meet that standard, is it necessary, as the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals required, that the error be one that “would shock the conscience of the common man, serve as a powerful indictment against our system of Justice, or seriously call into question the competence or integrity of the district judge?”
17-43 DAHDA V. UNITED STATES
DECISION BELOW: 853 F.3d 1101 JUSTICE GORSUCH TOOK NO PART. CERT. GRANTED 10/16/2017
QUESTION PRESENTED: Whether Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2520, requires suppression of evidence obtained pursuant to a wiretap order that is facially insufficient because the order exceeds the judge’s territorial jurisdiction.
Help us reach our $1000 goal by becoming a Scotus Report and @Scotus sponsor
TheScotusReport.com and @Scotus has launched a program to help fund our work. If just a small percentage of our reader’s chip in a few dollars we’ll be able to do more reporting on the latest updates at the Supreme Court. Thank you for your support.
Get your addition of Thinking like a Lawyer today! This book is a valuable aid to anyone interested in rules, precedent and legal reasoning. The book would be a great tool for any student of law or legal scholar.