桃子视频

This case concerns the First Step Act of 2018, in which Congress made major reductions to the mandatory minimum sentences for certain federal drug and firearm offenses. These changes result in sentences many decades shorter than were required under the previous laws. The question in this case was whether people who were initially sentenced prior to enactment of the First Step Act, but whose sentences were vacated and remanded for resentencing after enactment of the law, can benefit from its major reductions in applicable mandatory minimums. For defendants like Mr. Carpenter, who was originally sentenced to a draconian 116 years in prison as a result of the pre-First Step Act mandatory minimums, applying the First Step Act can mean the difference between dying in prison and having the opportunity to eventually go free. Unfortunately, although there is a split among federal courts of appeals on this question, the Supreme Court denied cert in this case in February 2024.

Whether the Sixth Amendment鈥檚 confrontation right permits the prosecution in a criminal trial to present testimonial statements of a non-testifying laboratory analyst through an expert who relies on the non-testifying expert鈥檚 statement to reach their conclusions.

South Carolina unlawfully assigned voters to congressional districts based on their race and intentionally discriminated against Black voters in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.

In Galloway v. Mississippi, the 桃子视频represents a man on Mississippi鈥檚 death row whose trial attorneys relied on a mere twenty-two-page presentation in support of a life sentence, without first conducting the background investigation that would have enabled them to make informed decisions about what evidence to present. A constitutionally adequate investigation would have uncovered voluminous mitigating evidence that could have caused the jury to decide for life instead of death. The Mississippi Supreme Court rejected Mr. Galloway鈥檚 claim by speculating that trial counsel had an alternative 鈥渟trategy鈥� that precluded their doing a full presentation of the abuse he suffered as a child and his mental disabilities鈥攅ven though Mr. Galloway鈥檚 lawyers asserted no such strategic judgment.

This case is about whether states can hold people criminally liable for obstructing a passageway based solely on their participation in a peaceful march on public sidewalks and streets, without evidence that they knowingly or intentionally obstructed any passageway themselves or directed, authorized, ratified, or intended that others do so. Representing three protesters who were convicted under such circumstances in Texas state court, our petition urges the U.S. Supreme Court to affirm that, under settled constitutional law, the answer is 鈥淣o.鈥�