• Skip to main content
  • Skip to footer
  • Categories
    • Civil
    • Criminal
    • Juvenile
  • Courts
    • Supreme
    • Appeals
    • Tax
    • SCOTUS
    • 7th Circuit
  • Judges

Case Clips

Published by the Indiana Office of Court Services

A. Scalia

Lafler v. Cooper, No. 10–209, 566 U.S. __ (Mar. 21, 2012).

March 23, 2012 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: A. Kennedy, A. Scalia, S. Alito, SCOTUS

Addresses “how to apply Strickland’s [Sixth Amendment ineffective assistance of counsel] prejudice test where ineffective assistance results in a rejection of the plea offer and the defendant is convicted at the ensuing trial.”

Jones v. United States, No. 10–1259, 565 U.S. __ (Jan. 23, 2012).

January 27, 2012 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: A. Scalia, S. Alito, S. Sotomayor, SCOTUS

Warrantless placement of a wireless GPS monitor on underbody of auto was a Fourth Amendment “search.”

Michigan v. Bryant, No. 09–150, __ U.S. __ (Feb. 28, 2011)

March 4, 2011 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: A. Scalia, C. Thomas, R. Ginsburg, S. Sotomayor, SCOTUS

Statement of mortally wounded victim to police was not “testimonial” under Crawford Confrontation Clause holding because circumstances indicated “primary purpose” of the police questions eliciting statement was to “meet an ongoing emergency.”

Padilla v. Kentucky, No. 08–651, __ U.S. __ (Mar. 31, 2010)

April 1, 2010 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: A. Scalia, J. Stevens, S. Alito, SCOTUS

Under the Sixth Amendment Strickland standard for effective assistance of counsel, “constitutionally competent counsel would have advised [the defendant] that his conviction for drug distribution made him subject to automatic deportation.”

Maryland v. Shatzer, No. 08–680, __ U.S. __ (Feb. 24, 2010)

February 26, 2010 Filed Under: Criminal Tagged With: A. Scalia, C. Thomas, J. Stevens, SCOTUS

Adopts a brightline rule that a fourteen-day break in Miranda custody ends the presumption of involuntariness established in Edwards v. Arizona for responses to police-initiated questioning after a subject has invoked the right to have Miranda counsel present during interrogation; a subject incarcerated for an unrelated crime is not in Miranda custody for purposes of this fourteen-day rule.

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Go to page 2
  • Go to page 3
  • Go to page 4
  • Go to Next Page »

Footer

About

Case Clips is a weekly publication of the Indiana Office of Court Services featuring appellate opinions curated by IOCS staff for Indiana judges.

Subscribe
  • Flickr
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

Archive

Copyright © 2025 · Indiana Office of Court Services · courts.in.gov/iocs