Here’s a look at this week’s cases:

Case:   Berghuis v. Thompkins

Date:  Monday March 1, 2010

Issue: Does the well-known Miranda right to remain silent prevent an officer from attempting to non-coercively persuade a defendant to cooperate where the officer informed the defendant of his rights, the defendant acknowledged that he understood them, and the defendant did not invoke them but did not waive them?

Van Chester Thompkins was convicted of first degree murder in part because of a comment he made to police officers near the end of a lengthy interrogation for which he remained mostly silent. An interrogator asked Thompkins if he had prayed to God asking forgiveness for “shooting that boy down.” Thompkins said he had and that confession was used against him at trial.

After his state court appeals were exhausted, the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled for Thompkins declaring that “persistent silence for nearly three hours in response to questioning and repeated invitations to tell his side of the story offered a clear and unequivocal message to the officers: Thompkins did not wish to waive his rights.”

Case:   Holland v. Florida

Date:  Monday March 1, 2010

Issue: Albert Holland is a convicted murderer who contends his lawyer failed to act in a timely manner to preserve his right seeking federal court review of his case.  Federal law allows for the filing of a case one year after sentencing in state court. Holland missed that deadline and has been unable to find a court to grant him an exception based on what he considers to be an “exceptional circumstance.”

Case:   Skilling v. United States

Date:  Monday March 1, 2010

Issue:   In 2006, former Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling was convicted of 12 counts of securities fraud and other charges for his role overseeing the operations of the doomed energy giant. He was sentenced to more than 24 years behind bars and ordered to fork over $45 million.  He is pursuing a two-fold challenge. First, Skilling claims that he was unable to get a fair trial from the Houston jury pool that contained many people who were directly impacted by and otherwise exposed to significant media coverage of Enron’s collapse.  Skilling also contends the “honest services” law that was used as the foundation for part of his prosecution is unconstitutionally broad.

The jury issue is of note because a ruling in Skilling’s favor could complicate efforts by the government should it prosecute the 9/11 plotters (KSM, et al) in New York City.  The “honest services” question is one the justices heard twice in December involving similar cases that focused on a former Alaska lawmaker as well as former newspaper publisher Conrad Black.  The disputed law says it is a federal offense if you fail to provide your employer with “honest services.”  Critics of the law contend it is so broad that it can cover someone who skips out of the office early to catch a ballgame.  The uncertainty of the “honest services” law has forced the hand of federal prosecutors in Chicago who’ve had to adjust their strategy in going after former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich.

Case:   McDonald v. City of Chicago

Date:  Tuesday March 2, 2010

Issue: Does the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms extend to the states? In D.C. v. Heller the high court ruled that Washington D.C.’s near total ban on handgun was unconstitutional and that the Second Amendment provides a federal right to gun possession.  But the Bill of Rights doesn’t hold sway over the states unless the Supreme Court says so.  This case asks if the Second Amendment applies to the states. Within hours of the high court’s ruling in Heller, lawsuits were filed across the country challenging local gun laws. This case comes from Chicago.

Justice Antonin Scalia authored the 5-4 Heller decision which explicitly left open the issue now before the court, thus making Tuesday’s case a natural follow-up to the huge 2008 decision.  The usual suspects on the gun rights issue have filed friend-of-the-court briefs in the case.  The Court accepted the National Rifle Association’s petition to intervene in the case and its lawyer has been given time to argue before the justices.

Case:   Hui v. Castaneda

Date:  Tuesday March 2, 2010

Issue: Can the family of man who died from penile cancer sue government doctors they claim were negligent in the treatment their loved one?  Several years ago, Francisco Castaneda was locked up in federal custody awaiting processing from immigration officials.  During this time Castaneda complained about a painful lesion on his penis.  Eleven months later, his penis was amputated but the cancer had spread to other parts of his body and he died.

After Castaneda’s death, his heirs joined a lawsuit against two Public Health Service doctors they claim were negligent in failing to make sure Castaneda had a biopsy. The family believes the test at the first sign of pain would have allowed doctors to save Castaneda’s life.

The doctors asked the trial court judge to dismiss the case claiming they are federal workers who have immunity against civil liability. The judge denied the motion ruling that there was enough evidence to believe the doctors had engaged in “conduct that transcends negligence by miles. It bespeaks of conduct that, if true, should be taught to every law student as conduct for which the moniker ‘cruel’ is inadequate.”  The doctors also lost their case on appeal but were successful in asking the high court to give its full consideration of the matter.

Case:   Samantar v. Yousef

Date:  Wednesday March 3, 2010

Issue:   This case involves Mohamed Ali Samantar, a former high-ranking Somali official, who is accused of being on the watch as other Somalis were tortured by government thugs. Now that Samantar lives in the United States the torture victims are suing him in U.S. courts under the Torture Victim Protection Act.  Lower courts have been split as to whether Samantar enjoys the immunity protection usually given foreign officials. At issue is whether the immunity protection under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) extends to an individual acting in an official capacity on behalf of a foreign state. And whether an individual who is no longer an official of a foreign state at the time suit is filed retains immunity under the FSIA for acts taken in the individual’s former official capacity.