Supreme Court Hears Bad Lawyer, Broken Elbow And Eyewitness ID Cases Next Week (VIDEO)

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court returns to the bench on Monday for another two weeks of oral arguments. Next week's docket is stacked with criminal cases stemming from claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, alleged Eighth Amendment violations and eyewitness identifications made under suggestive circumstances.

On Monday, the Court will hear Lafler v. Cooper and Missouri v. Frye, which both present the basic question of whether a person's Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel is violated when his lawyer tells him to reject a plea deal and then he gets slapped with a stiffer sentence than he would have received had he pleaded guilty.

The justices will consider Minneci v. Pollard on Tuesday. Richard Lee Pollard was a federal prisoner incarcerated in a private facility run by a government contractor when he slipped, fell and broke both his elbows. He's now trying to win money damages for what he argues were the prison staff's violations of his Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment, based on the way they treated him after he was hurt.

And in Wednesday's Perry v. New Hampshire, the Court will try to figure out whether all eyewitness identifications made under circumstances that tend to suggest a guilty party violate a suspect's due process rights or only those suggestive circumstances that the police have created.

Check out the video for a run-down of the issues, and come back to HuffPost after each argument to find out which way the justices themselves seem to be leaning in these cases.

Comments

[Gmasters]

04:12 PM on 10/29/2011

The one case I'm siding with the Plaintiff on immediately.

NO Corporation should EVER be allowed to run a prison. It is inherently corrupting to allow the Profit Motive to influence the administration of Justice.

Yet, we have a multibillion dollar private prison industry in this country constantly lobbying for "Get Tough on Crime" laws.

At $40,000 / Year per prisoner, it's no wonder there are more Americans in prison than any other country in the world.

Most criminals would happily sit home and drink Beer all day for just Half that. With no need for Guards. After all, who runs away from Free Beer.

[AMERIKA]

12:19 PM on 10/29/2011

With this Supreme Court, the corporation or government wins every case against the individual.

[alunsulen]

11:06 AM on 10/29/2011

I love how the court riles the lib lowlives!

[somewhatodd]

04:24 PM on 10/29/2011

you're confusing politics with your personal animosity.

[eminencefrontman]

05:49 PM on 10/29/2011

That is until there's a ruling which goes against the GOPer's talking points at which time the wingnuts begin squealing about "unelected activist judges legislating from the bench." Don't forget Brown v. Board of Education (1956) was about as activist as a judicial ruling can be; but then I get the feeling a lot of these unreconstructed southerners would like to revisit and repeal that precedent.

[CSKAP]

09:57 AM on 10/29/2011

Interesting that Rush announced yesterday that the current Supreme Court base their rulings on how state elections are decided. He was trying to push the vote on 2 Ohio ballot items and said we have to defeat them so the Supreme Court knows how to rule.
So much for a fair and constitutionally balanced Court

[dayzee10]

08:21 AM on 10/29/2011

The key factor in any case before this group of five jackals, the four progressive justices are exempt, is how does a case affect their corporate greed machine masters? If it is detrimental to their masters they will rule accordingly

[Patriot86]

03:56 PM on 10/28/2011

We can count on this ...the most corrupt court in history ...with GOP justices...who attend political rallies and fund raisers and receive gifts from those they sit in judgement on...to do the wrong thing...they are a bagger court...the GOP disgrace ...continues on.

[Rick Eriksen]

03:01 PM on 10/28/2011

Upon reading the definition of a cesspool and what it renders it became clear that there is a direct correlation between what we call the highest court in the land and the byproducts of a cesspit…

[jweller13]

02:54 PM on 10/28/2011

Watch National Geographics Brain Games on Youtube. It is amazing how horribly unreliable human memory and perception is, and scary how easy it is to implant false memories.

[maddogjohnson]

02:30 PM on 10/28/2011

Will alito, roberts, scalia and thomas recuse themselves when they are finally tried for corruption?

[luapmi2]

07:16 AM on 10/29/2011

Ahhhh and the liberal judges are all pure as the driven snow.

Now naive you are.

[Seymoreclearly]

02:23 PM on 10/28/2011

Ah, but no review of that whole corporations are people, too, and who says we need campaign finance reform when we've got Citizens United to clarify that whole buying influence thing? The govt you get is only as good as the govt you can afford to buy.....by all accounts, we should have THE BEST govt in the world. My fellow Citizens, I give you your Supreme Court's handiwork.

It begs the question, so what has gone so horribly wrong with America?

[wesdfs]

02:36 PM on 10/28/2011

corperate and political greed---the gov. did the same thing to the indians--- mexico --and the blackmen--during slavery---I guess were next----were the only ones left to rob---and were the only group that doesn't have as voice----time to choose a leader and put him in the presidentual race--you know he'll win---screw every one else running--------

[Dangaio]

01:49 PM on 10/28/2011

In the situation about the lawyer representation, I believe that the lawyers in question were working in their best interests as they saw them at the time. The lawyers that SHOULD be brought to the supreme court should be the ones that help companies who are gaming the justice system with sham litigation like the spamigation pioneered by the RIAA/MPAA and still being used by unscrupulous and shady companies. Righthaven comes to mind...

[noelie19]

11:39 AM on 10/31/2011

I respect your view, however, tell that to the guy who was 'sent up the river and serving the time.' Every hear the joke...'what's 1,000 lawyers at the bottom of the sea?' The answer: 'A good start!'

Have a great day! ; -)

[mariusvinchi]

01:45 PM on 10/28/2011

Perry v. New Hampshire is the case to watch. This might be the most important SCOTUS decision since Miranda. Given the HUGE number of false witness identification's that take place each day, it's imperative that the Court establish a set of guidelines to minimize these occurrences.
Some states have taken a proactive approach by having third parties (not involved in the case) go through a computerized photo lineup, one photo at a time. Studies have shown that this simple change, eliminated misidentification by 70%.

[AnthropologistAmongApes]

02:21 PM on 10/28/2011

Agreed.

[Douvie]

02:49 PM on 10/28/2011

Agreed. I believe there must be physical corroborating evidence in order to make such IDs admissible.

[mariusvinchi]

03:07 PM on 10/28/2011

Unfortunately, in the vast majority of criminal cases, they are circumstantial and without direct evidence. My forensics professor described something called the CSI effect. Jurors expect fancy laboratory results pointing at the accused, and that simply isn't the case in most instances. Jurors are more often left with anecdotal evidence and tainted witness testimony. Most jurors polled, placed much more weight on witnesses than indirect evidence.
Which brings us to tainted witnesses. Most police agencies use "six-packs" or line-ups that are almost ALWAYS contaminated by the investigators unconsciously "leading" and then "reinforcing" witnesses memories.
No one, not even police investigators, necessarily disagree that we need a new method to insure proper ID's. Especially when the vast majority of overturned convictions were based almost exclusively, on a false witness ID.
What's more disturbing is the thought of how many innocent falsely identified people were executed before the development of new technologies.......

[YahBetcha]

01:27 PM on 10/28/2011

THE MAIN REASON WE NEED TO RE-ELECT OBAMA: To make sure no more corporate owned hacks are appointed to the Court by RepubLIE-KKK-CONs who only care about the rich people and corporations who donate to their elections.

[PalaceOfWisdom]

02:03 PM on 10/28/2011

He will cruise to a second term as the GOP deliberately fields joke candidates so people like you can cheer the expansion of trickle-down because your guy is in office. That's okay, each day more people are seeing the truth. We don't need to consent to a slow demise over a quick one, we need revolt.

[Earfling]

02:42 PM on 10/28/2011

Obviously you haven't read about President Obamas financial backers and donors and how he has gotten around his 'not accepting campaign money from lobbyists'. You must be another MSNBC kool aid drinker.PR

[blitznstitch]

01:17 PM on 10/28/2011

Supreme Court should stop tinkering with the shadows of the sixth amendment and just put in place an easy to understand standard akin to what doctors have when they are sued "reasonable professional in the area"

[Faux]

01:40 PM on 10/28/2011

You can absolutely sue a lawyer for negligence. The Court isn't concerned with state malpractice law. The Court is asking whether the constitutionally protected right to the assistance of counsel was violated.

[Seymoreclearly]

02:29 PM on 10/28/2011

Seems to me that the defendants (the ones who were accused of committing crimes for which they followed counsel's advice to NOT take plea deals, then received stiffer sentences as a result) who brought the suit are looking to play both ends against the middle. They had the benefit of counsel, but it seems counsel didn't have the benefit of being able to read the sitting judges' minds.

Did they commit the crime(s) they're accused of, or not? If they did, then I guess it's just too bad their sentences ended up being longer than if they had copped guilty pleas with no trials.

If they did not commit the crime(s) they're accused of, then that's a whole other issue.

[turamali]

01:05 PM on 10/28/2011

What would be to the point is if SCOTUS looked into the lack of ethics of the Justices.