Case at a Glance

This case involves a routine (though lamentably fatal) automobile accident that turned into a constitutional controversy. A federal statute designed to encourage state and local governments to identify and remedy hazardous road conditions provides that information "compiled or collected" in that process cannot be discovered or used in state court proceedings. This case requires the Court to determine whether this statute covers materials such as police accident reports and, more importantly, whether Congress has the authority to affect state court proceedings in this manner.

• Previewed by Kevin J Worthen, a professor of law and associate dean at the J. Reuben Clark Law School at Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

A jury convicted David Sattazahn of murder but could not agree whether he should be executed or receive a life sentence. Pursuant to Pennsylvania law, the trial judge sentenced him to life imprisonment. This conviction was later reversed. A second jury trial again resulted in a murder conviction and, this time, a death sentence. Sattazahn argues that the trial court violated Supreme Court precedent when it sentenced him to death even though a judge had sentenced him to life at his first trial.

• Previewed by Alan Raphael, an associate professor of law at Loyola University Chicago School of Law and the author of the casebook, Criminal Procedure (Lupus 2001).

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

California's "Three Strikes" statute enhances criminal sentencing, mandating a life sentence with possible parole after 25 years for certain repeat offenders. The Supreme Court will decide if that required sentence violates the Eighth Amendment's "cruel and unusual punishments" clause in the case of Gary Ewing, who tried to shoplift three golf clubs priced at $399 each by slipping them down the leg of his pants.

• Previewed by William P. Weiner, a professor of law and director of international law programs at Thomas M. Cooley Law School.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

Leandro Andrade was convicted in state court of two counts of shoplifting $153.54 worth of children's videotapes from K-Mart. Because he had at least two prior felony convictions, California's "Three Strikes" law applied. As required by that law, he was sentenced to consecutive sentences of 25 years to life. The question now is whether the total sentence of at least 50 years imprisonment with no possibility of parole is "grossly disproportionate" to Andrade's crime and thus violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on "cruel and unusual punishments."

• Previewed by Ian Heath Gershengorn, a partner with Jenner & Block, LLC in Washington, D.C.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

The Federal Employer's Liability Act makes common carrier railroads liable for damages to employees who, while on the job, suffer injuries "caused in whole or in part" by the railroad's negligence. This case presents two issues under the Act. The first asks whether a claimant who has contracted the disease of asbestosis resulting from exposure to asbestos can also recover damages for the fear of developing cancer. The second asks whether the court must apportion damages for indivisible harms among unnamed potential tortfeasors.

• Previewed by Mary Phelan D'Isa, a professor of law at Thomas M. Cooley Law School in Lansing, Mich.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

Abu-Ali Abdur'Rahman was convicted and sentenced to death in 1987 for a brutal murder in Tennessee. He now claims that the prosecutor in his case withheld powerful exculpatory evidence and presented false testimony to the jury. Relying on a federal procedural rule, the lower federal courts refused to hear either these claims or the Supreme Court of Tennessee's interpretation of a state procedural law that would have allowed them to consider the claims of prosecutorial misconduct presented in this case.

• Previewed by Kathy Swedlow, the Deputy Director of the Innocence Project and an Assistant Professor at the Thomas M. Cooley Law School in Lansing, Mich.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

The Ninth Circuit has held that a defendant may not be charged with conspiracy if he joined the charged scheme only after law enforcement had intervened, thus making the conspiracy's objective unachievable. This limitation on the government's ability to investigate and prosecute conspiracy offenses, imposed by the Ninth Circuit in a case arising in the context of the government's "War on Drugs," could impede the government's ability to pursue the "War on Terrorism," as well.

• Previewed by Mark A. Berman, a partner at Gibbons, Del Deo, Dolan, Griffinger & Vecchione, P.C., in Newark, N.J., and New York, N.Y., where his practice focuses on white-collar criminal defense and appellate litigation. He is also an adjunct professor of law at Seton Hall University Law School, where he teaches a seminar on the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

In copyright and trademark infringement cases courts generally presume that the "irreparable harm" necessary for a preliminary injunction is established from a prima facie proof of infringement. The Supreme Court is now asked to determine whether for trademark dilution, a much tougher standard is warranted even for a permanent injunction.

• Previewed by Hugh C. Hansen, professor of law at Fordham University School of Law in New York City; (212) 636-6854 or hhansen@law.fordham.edu. He is a contributing editor for Preview and the founder and director of the Fordham Annual Conference on International Intellectual Property Law and Policy.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

Alaska's Sex Offender Registration Act requires convicted sex offenders to register with the state and requires the state to notify the community of their presence. Now two former sex offenders who had already served their prison terms before the law was passed have challenged it on ex post facto and due process grounds.

• Previewed by David L. Hudson, an attorney with the First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision

Case at a Glance

All 50 states and the federal government have passed a "Megan's Law" that requires police to notify the public about convicted sex offenders living in their community. Connecticut's Megan's Law makes this information available in the form of a registry posted on the World Wide Web. Now a convicted sex offender has sued the state, contending that it must afford him and similarly situated ex-offenders a hearing at which they can seek to prove that they are no longer dangerous and should not be listed in the registry.

• Previewed by David L. Hudson, an attorney with the First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn.

Supreme Court Decision: Click to read decision