Shaw used identifying numbers of Hsu’s bank account in a scheme to transfer funds from that account to accounts at other institutions from which Shaw was able to obtain Hsu’s funds. Shaw was convicted under 18 U.S.C. 1344(1), which makes it a crime to “knowingly execut[e] a scheme . . . to defraud a financial institution.” The Ninth Circuit affirmed. A unanimous Supreme Court vacated and remanded for consideration of whether the district court improperly instructed the jury that a scheme to defraud a bank must be one to deceive the bank or deprive it of something of value, instead of one to deceive and deprive. The Court rejected Shaw’s other arguments. Subsection (1) of the statute covers schemes to deprive a bank of money in a customer’s account. The bank had property rights in Hsu’s deposits as a source of loans from which to earn profits or as a bailee. The statute requires neither a showing that the bank suffered ultimate financial loss nor a showing that the defendant intended to cause such loss. Shaw knew that the bank possessed Hsu’s account, Shaw made false statements to the bank, Shaw believed that those false statements would lead the bank to release from that account funds that ultimately, wrongfully ended up with Shaw. Shaw knew that he was entering into a scheme to defraud the bank even if he was not familiar with bank-related property law. Subsection (2), which criminalizes the use of “false or fraudulent pretenses” to obtain “property . . . under the custody or control of” a bank, does not exclude Shaw’s conduct from subsection (1).

Annotation

A jury convicted Bravo and Martínez of bribery (18 U.S.C. 666), simultaneously acquitting them of conspiring to and traveling in interstate commerce to violate section 666. The only contested issue was whether they had violated section 666; the other elements of the acquitted charges (agreement and travel) were undisputed. The verdicts were, therefore, inconsistent. The convictions were vacated. The First Circuit held that section 666 proscribes only quid pro quo bribery, while the charge had permitted the jury to convict on a gratuity theory. On remand, the defendants moved for acquittal, arguing that the issue-preclusion component of the Double Jeopardy Clause barred retrial because the jury necessarily determined that they were not guilty under section 666 when it acquitted them of the related conspiracy and Travel Act offenses. The First Circuit and a unanimous Supreme Court affirmed denial of the motions. Double Jeopardy Clause issue preclusion does not bar retrial after a jury has returned irreconcilably inconsistent verdicts, where the convictions are later vacated for legal error unrelated to the inconsistency. The defendants bear the burden of showing that whether they violated section 666 has been “determined by a valid and final judgment of acquittal.” A conviction that contradicts their acquittals is plainly relevant to that determination, even if later overturned on appeal for unrelated legal error. A verdict of guilt is a jury decision, even if subsequently vacated.

Annotation

In Booth v. Maryland (1987), the Supreme Court held that “the Eighth Amendment prohibits a capital sentencing jury from considering victim impact evidence” that does not “relate directly to the circumstances of the crime.” In Payne (1991), the Court held that Booth was wrong to conclude that the Eighth Amendment required a ban with respect to a particular type of victim impact testimony, but stated that “admission of a victim’s family members’ characterizations and opinions about the crime, the defendant, and the appropriate sentence violates the Eighth Amendment.” No such evidence was actually presented in Payne. An Oklahoma jury convicted Bosse of three counts of first-degree murder for the 2010 killing of Griffin and her children. The prosecution asked the victims’ relatives to recommend a sentence. They recommended death; the jury agreed. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the sentence, concluding that Payne “implicitly overruled that portion of Booth regarding characterizations of the defendant and opinions of the sentence.” The Supreme Court vacated. Payne “specifically acknowledged its holding did not affect” Booth’s prohibition on opinions about the crime, the defendant, and the appropriate punishment. That should have ended its inquiry into whether the Eighth Amendment bars such testimony; the state court was wrong to go further and conclude that Payne implicitly overruled Booth in its entirety. Supreme Court decisions remain binding precedent until that Court reconsiders them, regardless of whether subsequent cases raise doubts about their continuing vitality. Oklahoma courts remain bound by Booth’s prohibition on characterizations and opinions from a victim’s family members about the crime, the defendant, and the appropriate sentence. The court declined to consider an argument that error did not affect the sentencing determination, and the defendant’s rights were adequately protected by mandatory sentencing review in capital cases under Oklahoma law.

Annotation

Annotation

An equally divided Court affirmed, by per curiam opinion, the judgment of the appeals court below. That court had temporarily halted implementation of the federal government’s Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents program (“DAPA”) on the grounds that the policy likely violated the Administrative Procedure Act. The case will go back to the federal district court to determine whether DAPA should be permanently enjoined.

Annotation

Detective Fackrell conducted surveillance on a South Salt Lake City residence based on an anonymous tip about drug dealing. The number of people he observed making brief visits during the week made him suspect drug activity. After seeing Strieff leave the residence, Fackrell detained Strieff at a nearby parking lot, requested identification and relayed the information to a police dispatcher, who informed him that Strieff had an outstanding arrest warrant for a traffic violation. Fackrell searched Streiff and found methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia. The Utah Supreme Court ordered that the evidence be suppressed. The Supreme Court reversed. The evidence Fackrell seized incident to Strieff’s arrest is admissible; Fackrell’s discovery of a valid, pre-existing, and untainted arrest warrant attenuated the connection between the unconstitutional investigatory stop and the evidence seized incident to a lawful arrest. The exclusionary rule encompasses both the “primary evidence obtained as a direct result of an illegal search or seizure” and “evidence later discovered and found to be derivative of an illegality.” To ensure that the rule’s deterrence benefits are not outweighed by its substantial social costs, there are several exceptions, including the attenuation doctrine, which provides for admissibility when the connection between unconstitutional police conduct and the evidence is sufficiently remote or has been interrupted by intervening circumstances. The Court noted three factors: temporal proximity between the initially unlawful stop and the search favors suppressing the evidence; the presence of intervening circumstances (the existence of a valid warrant, predating the investigation and entirely unconnected with the stop) strongly favors the prosecution; the “purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct” also strongly favors the state. Fackrell was at most negligent; his errors did not rise to a purposeful or flagrant violation of Strieff’s rights.

Annotation

Taylor and other gang members twice broke into homes of marijuana dealers, demanded drugs and money, found neither, and left relatively empty handed. At Taylor’s retrial on Hobbs Act charges of affecting commerce or attempting to do so through robbery, the court excluded Taylor’s evidence that he targeted dealers selling only locally-grown marijuana. The Fourth Circuit and Supreme Court affirmed his conviction. The Hobbs Act’s commerce element is satisfied by showing that the defendant robbed or attempted to rob a drug dealer of drugs or drug proceeds. The Act’s language is unmistakably broad and reaches any obstruction, delay, or other effect on commerce, 18 U.S.C. 1951(a), over which the United States has jurisdiction. Congress may regulate activities that have a substantial aggregate effect on interstate commerce, including “purely local activities that are part of an economic ‘class of activities’ that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce,” if those activities are economic in nature. One such “class of activities” is the production, possession, and distribution of controlled substances. A robber who affects even the intrastate sale of marijuana affects commerce over which the United States has jurisdiction. If the government proves beyond a reasonable doubt that a robber targeted a marijuana dealer’s drugs or illegal proceeds, it has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that commerce over which the United States has jurisdiction was affected.

Annotation

Congress extended the federal prohibition on firearms possession by convicted felons to persons convicted of a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,” 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(9), defining that phrase to include a misdemeanor under federal, state, or tribal law, committed against a domestic relation that necessarily involves the “use . . . of physical force.” In its 2014 Castleman opinion, the Supreme Court held that a knowing or intentional assault qualifies under section 922(g)(9), but did not address reckless assault. Voisine and Armstrong each pleaded guilty under a Maine law, which makes it a misdemeanor to “intentionally, knowingly or recklessly cause[ ] bodily injury” to another. During later investigations, of Voisine for killing a bald eagle, and of Armstrong, as part of a narcotics investigation, officers discovered that each owned firearms. Both were charged under section 922(g)(9). The First Circuit and Supreme Court affirmed their convictions. A reckless domestic assault qualifies as a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” under section 922(g)(9); the phrase “use. . . of physical force” does not distinguish between domestic assaults committed knowingly or intentionally and those committed recklessly. Reckless conduct, which requires the conscious disregard of a known risk, is not an accident: It involves a deliberate decision to endanger another. Congress must have known it was sweeping in some persons who had engaged in reckless conduct. That was part of the point: to apply the federal firearms restriction to those abusers, along with all others, covered by the states’ ordinary misdemeanor assault laws.

Annotation

Texas House Bill 2 (2013) required that a “physician performing or inducing an abortion . . . must, on the date [of service], have active admitting privileges at a hospital . . . not further than 30 miles from the” abortion facility, and that the facility meet the state’s “minimum standards . . . for ambulatory surgical centers.” As a basis for enjoining enforcement, the district court found: as enforcement of the admitting-privileges requirement began, the number of abortion facilities dropped from about 40 to about 20, so that the number reproductive-age women living more than 50 miles from a clinic doubled and the number living more than 200 miles away increased about 2,800%; the number of facilities would drop to seven or eight if the surgical-center provision took effect; before H.B. 2’s passage, abortion was extremely safe with very low rates of complications and virtually no deaths; abortion was safer than many more common procedures not subject to the same level of regulation; and the cost of compliance with the surgical-center requirement would likely exceed $1.5 million-$3 million per clinic. The Fifth Circuit reversed, citing res judicata. The Supreme Court reversed: the constitutional claims are not barred by res judicata. This as-applied, post-enforcement challenge rests upon factual developments that occurred after an earlier facial challenge, once enforcement started and several clinics closed. Both of the challenged requirements place a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a previability abortion and constitute an undue burden on abortion access. Courts must consider the burdens a law imposes on abortion access together with the benefits those laws confer. The state’s evidence did not show how the law advanced its legitimate interest in protecting women’s health when compared to prior law, which required providers to have a “working arrangement” with doctors who had admitting privileges and required abortion facilities to meet extensive health and safety requirements that were policed by inspections.

Annotation