High court defines rights of suspects, immigrants, and death-row inmates

The U.S. Supreme Court, near the end of its term, issued nine decisions last week. From issues of child-abuse to bath salts, here are some of the cases you might have missed.

Admissible evidence. A 3-year-old boy with bruises told his preschool teacher his mother’s boyfriend was beating him up. The teacher called a child-abuse hotline, and the boyfriend, Darius Clark, was convicted. Clark argued his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses against him was violated because the child was not cross-examined at trial. He argued the teacher was acting like a police officer gathering evidence, so the child’s statement should not have been used against him. Matthew Meyer argued the case before the justices. But the court ruled against Clark, saying he did not have a right to confront the child because the child was only trying get help for a serious problem, not provide evidence for a prosecution.

Coming to America. Two rulings last week dealt with immigration. One removed an obstacle to appeal decisions made by the Board of Immigration Appeals. The other stated the government can deny a visa to the immigrant spouse of an American citizen without specifying the reason for it. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that even though marriage might be a fundamental right, the denial of a visa has no bearing on that.

Ignorance is innocence. In another unanimous ruling, the court held the government to a higher standard of proof in a drug-related case. Stephen McFadden peddled bath salts online. The substance he was selling is sometimes misused to mimic the effects of methamphetamine or cocaine. Those are illegal, of course, but bath salts are not. It is illegal, though, to make or sell something “substantially similar” to a controlled substance. McFadden didn’t know about that law, but he was convicted anyway. He said the government should have to prove he knew the substance he sold was illegal. And the justices agreed.

Death row rulings. The justices reversed one death penalty sentence and upheld the other in rulings issued last week. Kevan Brumfield was on death row for a murder he committed before the Supreme Court exempted people with low IQs from that punishment. His lawyers argued he should have a hearing to consider his mental incapacity. He will have that now; whether he will remain on death row is yet to be determined. A second capital punishment ruling kept convicted murderer Hector Ayala on death row. He’d argued his case was prejudiced because his lawyers weren’t privy to why certain jurors weren’t selected. Wrong, said the court: The outcome would have been the same regardless.

Listen to “Legal Docket” on The World and Everything in It.