Is Everybody (Anybody) Happy?
Ratcheting Up Protection Against Car Searches and the Right to Confrontation,
but Loosening Up the Exclusionary Rule and the Right to Counsel

Presenter: Professor Arthur Leavens

 

 

Supreme Court Review Conference: Important Decisions of the 2008-2009 Term
Sponsored by the Western New England College School of Law
Institute for Legislative and Governmental Affairs
October 3, 2009

 

List of Principal Cases

1. Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 129 S.Ct. 2527 (2009)(holding that Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause bars drug-lab certificates of analysis at a criminal trial because the certificates are “testimonial” in nature);

2. Kansas v. Ventris, 129 S.Ct. 1841 (2009)(holding that defendant’s statement elicited in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel may be used to impeach defendant’s inconsistent trial testimony);

3. Montejo v. Louisiana, 129 S.Ct. 2079 (2009)(over-ruling Michigan v.Jackson阵 prophylactic rule that barred police from questioning a defendant who had asserted his Sixth Amendment right to counsel);

4. Arizona v.Gant, 129 S.Ct. 1710 (2009)(cutting back the authority of the police to search the passenger compartment of an automobile incident to the arrest of a recent occupant of that automobile);

5. Herring v. United States, 129 S.Ct. 695 (2009)(extending the “good faith” exception to the Fourth Amendment’s exclusionary rule to include fruits of an unlawful arrest based on negligent police record keeping that mistakenly indicated an outstanding arrest warrant).