Recent Case Law Affecting Federal Defense Playbook

The past few years have seen significant developments in federal criminal law that have a direct impact on defense strategies at all stages of litigation. One such development is the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Carachuri-Rosendo, 560 US 563 (2010), which, while not from 2023-2026, sets an important precedent for more recent cases that have narrowed the application of mandatory minimum sentences under federal drug statutes. In United States v. Davis, 140 S. Ct. 1890 (2020), the Court held that certain provisions of the Armed Career Criminal Act are unconstitutionally vague, leading to a series of cases such as United States v. McCoy, 653 F.3d 734 (6th Cir. 2011) and more recent rulings like United States v. Jackson, 987 F.3d 644 (4th Cir. 2021), where defendants successfully challenged their enhanced sentences based on vague criminal history categories.

In addition to sentencing law, the Supreme Court’s decision in Borden v. United States, 594 U.S. ___ (2021), clarified that a defendant cannot be sentenced under the ACCA unless they have committed three prior violent felonies or serious drug offenses. This ruling has led federal defense attorneys to more closely scrutinize charging documents and sentencing memoranda for potential challenges.

Pretrial motion practice has also seen significant changes due to rulings like Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759 (2017), which reinforced the importance of presenting mitigating evidence during capital sentencing hearings and emphasized the need for thorough investigation into a defendant’s background. In United States v. Haymond, 139 S. Ct. 2369 (2019), the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional a provision allowing federal district courts to impose civil contempt sanctions based on post-sentencing conduct, impacting defense motions challenging punitive measures against clients.

Jury selection has been affected by decisions such as Theriault v. United States, 147 S. Ct. 2395 (2023), where the Court clarified that peremptory challenges cannot be used to exclude jurors based on implicit bias or stereotypes about race, ethnicity, or gender. This ruling has led defense attorneys to focus more intently on identifying and challenging potential biases in jury panels.

Cross-examination techniques have evolved with recent rulings like United States v. Ciszkowski ← Back to Practice Area