Profile: greg.mermelstein

Greg Mermelstein is the Deputy Director and General Counsel for the Missouri State Public Defender System. A Missouri public defender since 1990, he has represented clients on appeal and in postconviction in all types of cases, from misdemeanors to the death penalty. He is a graduate of the University of Missouri-Columbia School of Law.

• Login Count: 230
• Join Date: 71/16/2016 10:0:00
• Last on: 08/22/2022 12:36:22
• Location: Deputy Director and General Counsel
• Articles posted by this author:
• Biden v. Texas: Termination of return-to-Mexico policy did not violate INA; lower courts cannot enter injunctions in certain INA matters, but retain subject matter jurisdiction
• New York State Rifle Assn. v. Bruen: Requiring “special need” to obtain gun license to carry gun outside home violates Second Amendment
• Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta: States can prosecute crimes committed by non-Native Americans against Native Americans in Indian country
• Ruan v. U.S.: Doctors must know prescriptions are unauthorized to violate Sec. 841 of Controlled Substances Act
• Concepcion v. U.S.: Courts can consider intervening changes in law and fact under First Step Act
• Nance v. Ward: Method-of-execution claims should be brought under Sec. 1983, even if alternative method isn’t authorized by state law
• Vega v. Tekoh: Miranda violations do not support Sec. 1983 actions
• U.S. v. Taylor: Attempted Hobbs Act robbery not a “crime of violence” under ACCA
• Shoop v. Twyford: Federal courts cannot issue transportation orders for testing unless the evidence from the tests would be legally admissible
• Denezpi v. U.S.: Double Jeopardy’s dual-sovereignty doctrine doesn’t prohibit same sovereign from prosecuting same conduct under Native American and federal law
• Kemp v. U.S.: Rule 60(b)(1) allows relief for error-of-law mistake
• Supreme Court limits bond hearing rights for noncitizens in removal proceedings
• Plaintiffs cannot bring “Bivens actions” for damages for Fourth Amendment violations at the U.S. border, or for First Amendment retaliation, the U.S. Supreme Court held June 8 in Egbert v. Boule.
• AEDPA bars federal courts from hearing new evidence on claim that state postconviction counsel failed to develop state court record
• Patel v. Garland: Courts cannot review factual findings denying discretionary relief from removal of noncitizens
• Thompson v. Clark: Malicious prosecution claim does not require showing prior prosecution was dismissed due to innocence
• Ramirez v. Collier: Condemned persons entitled to pastor to pray with them and touch them during execution
• Brown v. Davenport: Federal habeas petitioners must satisfy both prejudice tests under Brecht and AEDPA
• Wooden v. U.S.: Multiple convictions from single criminal episode do not trigger enhancement under ACCA
• U.S. v. Zubaydah and FBI v. Fazaga: State secrets privilege prevents disclosure of national security information
• U.S. v. Tsarnaev: District court did not abuse discretion in limiting general media question during voir dire, and excluding “confusing” mitigating evidence in penalty phase
• Hemphill v. New York: Confrontation Clause bars testimonial hearsay even if necessary to correct misleading impression created by defense
• City of Tahlequah v. Bond and Rivas-Villegas v. Cortesluna: Officers entitled to qualified immunity in excessive force cases
• Garland v. Ming Dai: Federal appellate court need not accept noncitizen’s testimony as “true” in immigration appeals
• U.S. v. Cooley: Tribal police officer can temporarily detain non-Native American on reservation for violation of state or federal law
• Sanchez v. Mayorkas: Noncitizen with temporary protected status cannot become permanent resident if entered country illegally
• Greer v. U.S.: Court sets standard for plain error relief under Rehaif
• Van Buren v. U.S.: Using computer database for improper purpose does not violate Computer Fraud and Abuse Act if person had lawful access to database
• Terry v. U.S.: First Step sentence reduction for crack offenses applies only to people previously sentenced to mandatory minimums
• U.S. v. Palomar-Santiago: All three prongs of 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1326(d) must be met to attack prior removal
• Edwards v. Vannoy: New criminal procedural rules will never be retroactive on federal collateral review; unanimous-jury holding not retroactive
• Caniglia v. Strom: Community caretaking doctrine does not apply to searches of residences
• Niz-Chavez v. Garland: Immigration Act requires all statutory information be in a single notice-to-appear document for stop-time rule to apply
• Alaska v. Wright: Federal habeas petitioner must be in State custody under 2254(a)
• Jones v. Mississippi: Permanent incorrigibility not required to sentence juveniles to life without parole; retroactivity case law questioned, door opened to proportionality claims
• Lombardo v. St. Louis: Prone restraint can be excessive force even when detainee resists
• Lange v. California: Pursuit of misdemeanor suspect does not always justify warrantless entry into home
• Johnson v. Guzman Chavez: Supreme Court limits release on bond for some noncitizens seeking withholding of removal
• Dunn v. Reeves: State court did not apply per se rule that failure to call trial counsel to testify defeats ineffective assistance claim
• Pereida v. Wilkinson: Cancellation of removal after conviction under statute containing both eligible and ineligible offenses requires proof that actual offense is eligible
• Torres v. Madrid: Application of physical force to a person with intent to restrain is a Fourth Amendment “seizure,” even if the person doesn’t submit and escapes
• Brownback v. King: FTCA 'judgment bar' applies when district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction
• Mays v. Hines: Federal habeas courts cannot disregard state court’s findings that evidence of guilt was overwhelming
• Supreme Court opening opinions: qualified immunity, AEDPA, and military statute of limitations
• Barton v. Barr: Prior offense precluding cancellation of removal need not be the offense of removal
• Kansas v. Glover: Investigatory stop of car owned by person with revoked license does not violate 4th Amendment, absent information the driver is not the owner
• Ramos v. Louisiana: Sixth Amendment requires juries be unanimous, but real debate is over stare decisis
• Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr: Immigration Act allows courts to apply a legal standard to undisputed or established facts
• Kansas v. Garcia: Federal I-9 employment verification law does not preempt state law prohibiting providing false information on other employment-related documents
• Kahler v. Kansas: Constitution does not require a particular standard for insanity defense
• Hernandez v. Mesa: Bivens action cannot be brought for cross-border shootings; Thomas would eliminate Bivens actions altogether
• Holguin-Hernandez v. U.S.: Argument to district court for a lesser sentence preserves claim on appeal that longer sentence was unreasonable
• Shular v. United States: Supreme Court defines 'serious drug offense' under ACCA
• McKinney v. Arizona: State courts can reweigh capital mitigators without a jury on collateral review
• City of Escondido v. Emmons: Right to be free from excessive force too general to deny qualified immunity
• Mitchell v. Wisconsin: Blood draw of unconscious driver suspected of drunk driving does not generally require warrant
• United States v. Haymond: Federal statute imposing mandatory minimum sentence for violating supervised release violates Fifth and Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial
• United States v. Davis: Supreme Court again finds "crime of violence" definition unconstitutionally vague
• Flowers v. Mississippi: History of discriminatory strikes, disparate questioning of jurors, and not striking similarly situated white jurors proved Batson violation
• Rehaif v. United States: Federal gun law requires Government to prove defendants knew they possessed a firearm and knew their status prohibited them from possessing it
• Gundy v. United States: Supreme Court upholds Attorney General ability to apply SORNA to pre-Act offenders (for now)
• McDonough v. Smith: Statute of limitations for Section 1983 fabricated-evidence claim begins to run when prosecution is terminated
• Quarles v. U.S.: Intent to commit a crime can be formed at any time for remaining in burglary to qualify as a violent felony
• Mont v. United States: Pretrial incarceration on new offense will toll period of supervised release if new sentence gives credit for time served
• Nieves v. Bartlett: Retaliatory arrest claim requires proof of no probable cause for arrest
• Bucklew v. Precythe: Execution method challenges must show State's method adds pain, and a readily-available alternative exists
• Nielsen v. Preap: Noncitizens can be held without bail pending removal proceedings, even if not immediately arrested after release from their criminal cases
• Timbs v. Indiana: Eighth Amendment's excessive fines clause applies to States
• Supreme Court Issues Two Decisions on Execution of Mentally Disabled People
• Garza v Idaho: SCOTUS Recap
• Shoop v. Hill: Habeas courts must decide old intellectual disability claims based on Atkins, not Supreme Court 2017 opinion in Moore
• Supreme Court issues opinions on sentence enhancement under ACCA
• Supreme Court Concludes October 2017 Term
• Carpenter v. U.S.: Obtaining Cell Phone-Site Information from Third-Party Service Providers is a Search that Requires a Warrant
• Pereira v. Sessions and Trump v. Hawaii SCOTUS Recaps
• Sexton v Beaudreaux
• Currier v Virginia: Not so straightfoward
• Supreme Court Decides Federal Sentencing Guidelines Cases
• Collins v. Virginia: Police cannot enter curtilage of home to search vehicle without a warrant
• Lagos v. United States: Mandatory Victims Restitution Act does not require defendants to reimburse victims for expenses incurred in private investigations or civil proceedings
• U.S. v. Sanchez-Gomez: Challenge to pretrial shackling policy became moot in individual criminal cases once those cases were concluded
• Dahda v. United States: Supreme Court explains when wiretap orders are "insufficient on their face"
• McCoy v. Louisiana: Defense counsel cannot concede client's guilt against client's wishes
• Byrd v. U.S.: Non-authorized drivers may have reasonable expectation of privacy in rental car
• Murphy v. Smith: Prison Litigation Reform Act requires that prevailing prisoners pay 25% of their judgments toward their attorney's fees
• Marinello v. U.S.: Tax obstruction requires intent by taxpayer to obstruct a particular IRS investigation or audit
• Jennings v. Rodriguez: Immigration and Nationality Act does not require that detainees be granted bail, but constitutional question remains undecided
• Kisela v. Hughes: Courts must not define 'clear established' law with high level of generality in deciding if police have qualified immunity
• Ayestas v. Davis: Supreme Court rejects restrictive test for obtaining expert and investigative funding in federal cases
• Probable cause is based on totality of circumstances, Supreme Court says, but Ginsburg suggests subjective intent of police needs to be considered
• Supreme Court Issues Habeas Decisions on Racial Bias, Specific Performance of Plea Agreements, and Competency to be Executed
• Jenkins v. Hutton: Supreme Court Reaffirms Sawyer Standard for Reviewing Defaulted Habeas Claims
• U.S. Supreme Court Summaries
• Packingham v. North Carolina: Broad Law Banning People Convicted of Sex Crimes from Accessing Internet Violates First Amendment
• Weaver v. Mass. and Davila v. Davis: Supreme Court Limits Some Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Claims
• Supreme Court decides immigration cases regarding deportation for statutory rape, false procuring of citizenship, and transmission of citizenship through unwed parents
• Honeycutt v. United States: Summary of Ruling
• Lee v. United States: Supreme for Court Sets Prejudice Standard for Bad Advice on Immigration
• McWilliams v. Dunn: Supreme Court Sidesteps Whether Indigent Defendants are Entitled to a "Defense Team" Expert under Ake
• Supreme Court Update
• Dean v. US: Judges can consider the mandatory minimum sentence a defendant will serve under Sec. 924(c) in deciding sentence for predicate conviction
• Moore v. Texas: Courts must use current medical standards in determining intellectual disability under Atkins
• Rippo v. Baker: Test for Disqualification of Judge is Whether Average Judge in Situation would Likely be Neutral; Showing of Actual, Subjective Bias Not Required
• Beckles v. United States: Federal sentencing guidelines are not subject to due process vagueness challenges
• Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado SCOTUS Summary
• Buck v. Davis: Supreme Court condemns racially based testimony as factor in imposing death sentence; explains standard to use in deciding certificates of appealability
• Heien v. North Carolina -- "Reasonable" Mistakes of Law Do Not Violate Fourth Amendment, But Should Be Narrow and Rare
• Jennings v. Stephens - Supreme Court Gives More Opportunity to Uphold Habeas Wins on Appeal
• Grady v. North Carolina - GPS Tracking Of Sex Offenders Implicates Fourth Amendment Protection
• Woods v. Donald - Counsel's Absence From Courtroom During Portion of Trial Relating to Co-Defendant Does Not Mandate Habeas Relief
• Police Cannot Extend Traffic Stop For Drug Dog To Sniff Car
• Supreme Court Potpourri: Disposal of Guns by Felons, Prisoners' Rights to File Civil Suits, ADA's Applicability to Arrests
• Elonis v. United States - Conviction Under Threats Statute Requires Proof Of Culpable Mental State, But Precise State Remains Unanswered
• Mellouli v. Lynch - Supreme Court Uses "Categorical Approach" To Limit Deportation for Possession of Drug Paraphernalia
• Brumfield v. Cain - Supreme Court Gives Green Light for Atkins Claim to be Heard
• Ohio v. Clark: Statements by Non-testifying Witnesses Made to Persons Other Than Law Enforcement Are Subject to the Confrontation Clause, But More Likely to be Admissible
• Davis v. Ayala - Trial Court's Exclusion of Defense Counsel from Batson Hearing Was "Harmless Error" in Federal Habeas
• Justice Kennedy Denounces Long-Term Solitary Confinement, Says Courts May Need To Intervene To Stop It
• McFadden v. United States – Supreme Court Explains Knowledge Requirement for Controlled Substance Analogues
• Johnson v. United States – Supreme Court Strikes Down Armed Career Criminal Act’s Residual Clause Regarding "Violent Felonies" As Unconstitutionally Vague
• Supreme Court Strikes Down Law Requiring Hotels To Give Police Information About Guests Without Opportunity For Review; Makes It Easier For Pretrial Detainees To Sue For Excessive Force
• Glossip v. Gross: Supreme Court Upholds Use of Midazolam for Executions; Dissenters Say Death Penalty Likely Unconstitutional
• Supreme Court Decides Mullenix v. Luna
• White v. Wheeler: Supreme Court again emphasizes deference to state courts in federal habeas
• Supreme Court issues brief decisions on filing fees for prisoners and ineffective assistance of counsel
• Kansas v. Carr -- Capital jurors need not be instructed on burden of proof for mitigating circumstances; severance from co-defendant's penalty phase not required
• Hurst v. Florida - “ Jury, not judge, must make findings required to impose death sentence
• Musacchio v. United States
• Supreme Court cautions lower courts against expanding qualified immunity
• Supreme Court Issues Decisions on Double Jeopardy, Bank Fraud, and Insider Trading
• Bosse v. Oklahoma: Eighth Amendment Ban on Victims' Relatives' Opinions about what Sentence a Capital Defendant Should Receive has not been "Implicitly Overruled"
• Supreme Court issues decisions on Hobbs Act robbery of intrastate drug dealers, bribery of public officials, and RICO
• Montgomery v. Louisiana: Miller's Ban on Mandatory Life without Parole for Juvenile Homicide Offenders is Retroactive
• Brady, Child Pornography Enhancement, the Second Amendment, and the Right to Counsel of Choice
• SCOTUS Decisions on Johnson retroactivity, plain error under the federal sentencing guidelines, SORNA, and AEDPA Deference
• Voisine v. United States: Upholds Firearms Ban for Persons Convicted of DV Misdemeanors Involving Only Reckless Conduct
• Supreme Court Issues Decisions on Batson, Deportation of Persons Convicted of Crimes, Speedy Sentencing, Conspiracy, and AEDPA Deference
• Supreme Court Issues Decisions on Juvenile Life without Parole, the Death Penalty, and State Procedural Bars to Federal Habeas
• Supreme Court issues Five Significant Decisions for Public Defenders
• Utah v. Strieff: Discovery of valid arrest warrant can attenuate taint of illegal stop
• Birchfield v. North Dakota: A SCOTUS Summary
• Mathis v. United States: Re Warrantless Breath Tests