Criminal Procedure: Recent Supreme Court Rulings and Their Implications

Dmitriy Smirnov

October 3, 2024

White Collar Crime

The U.S. Supreme Court continues to shape the landscape of criminal procedure through recent rulings that have far-reaching consequences. Three notable cases—U.S. v. Rahimi, McElrath v. Georgia, and Smith v. Arizona—highlight ongoing debates important to criminal defendants over the Second Amendment, plea bargains, and the confrontation clause. Each decision impacts how constitutional rights are interpreted and applied in the criminal justice system, and it is critical for defense counsel who represent criminal defendants to understand to be aware of these rulings.

U.S. v. Rahimi: The Second Amendment and Firearm Restrictions

In U.S. v. Rahimi (2023), the Supreme Court addressed whether restrictions on gun ownership for individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders violate the Second Amendment. The Rahimi decision built on the precedent set by its decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, on June 23, 2022, which expanded Second Amendment protections by ruling that Americans have a right to carry firearms in public for self-defense. The Bruen Court struck down a New York law requiring “proper cause” to obtain a concealed carry permit, asserting that restrictions on firearm rights must align with historical traditions of regulation, marking a significant shift, emphasizing individual gun rights beyond the home. The Rahimi Court held that such restrictions are unconstitutional under the historical framework for interpreting the Second Amendment.

The Court emphasized that the government must justify gun restrictions based on historical analogs that existed at the time of the nation’s founding. Since no historical precedent supported limiting gun rights based on domestic violence restraining orders, the restriction was deemed invalid.

This ruling has significant implications for firearm regulations. It reinforces a broad interpretation of Second Amendment rights, requiring that modern gun control laws be rooted in historical context. Moving forward, courts will scrutinize existing firearm restrictions more rigorously, potentially challenging a wide range of gun control measures beyond domestic violence cases.  Anyone facing a firearms related charge should hire competent counsel who understands this constitutional framework.

McElrath v. Georgia: Plea Bargains and Waivers of Rights

In McElrath v. Georgia (2023), the Supreme Court examined the scope of plea bargains and whether defendants can waive their right to appeal based on ineffective assistance of counsel claims. McElrath, who accepted a plea deal, later argued that his counsel’s advice was deficient, leading him to unknowingly waive his right to appeal. 

The Court ruled that waivers of rights in plea deals must be done knowingly and voluntarily. However, the ruling underscored that the threshold for proving ineffective assistance of counsel remains high. As is typical in ineffective assistance of counsel claims, Defendants must demonstrate not only that their counsel’s performance was deficient but also that the deficiency prejudiced the outcome of the case.

The McElrath decision highlights the delicate balance between encouraging plea bargains and safeguarding defendants’ rights. While plea bargains are a critical component of the criminal justice system, and in many cases provide substantial benefits to clients that outweigh and cut against the risk of trial, this case reinforces the necessity of competent legal advice to ensure that defendants fully understand the consequences of their pleas.

Smith v. Arizona: The Confrontation Clause and Expert Testimony

In Smith v. Arizona (2023), the Court addressed the confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees defendants the right to confront witnesses against them. The issue in Smith centered around whether expert testimony, based on the analysis of other, non-testifying laboratory analysts who would not be subject to cross-examination, violated the defendant’s confrontation rights.

The Supreme Court ruled that allowing expert witnesses to testify on the findings of others without the opportunity for cross-examination violates the confrontation clause. This decision builds on the Court’s prior rulings in Crawford v. Washington and Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, affirming that defendants have the consequential right to question the individuals who directly participated in the testing or analysis used as evidence.

The Smith decision emphasizes the importance of protecting the procedural rights of defendants, particularly when scientific evidence plays a critical role in criminal trials. Going forward, prosecutors will need to ensure that expert witnesses are the ones who performed or directly supervised the work in question to comply with the confrontation clause.

Broader Implications for Criminal Procedure

These three decisions collectively illustrate the Court’s ongoing commitment to safeguarding constitutional rights in the criminal justice system. The Rahimi decision expands Second Amendment protections, signaling potential challenges to modern gun control laws available to criminal defendants. McElrath v. Georgia reaffirms the importance of effective legal counsel in plea deals, underscoring that waivers of rights must be made with full understanding. Finally, Smith v. Arizona strengthens defendants’ confrontation rights, ensuring that they can challenge the testimony of expert witnesses in court. Trial counsel for criminal defendants must understand and apply the rationale behind this important decision to ensure that clients’ confrontation rights are protected even in circumstances beyond the facts of the Smith decision. Since prosecutors will do everything possible to win, anyone facing a criminal investigation or charges must hire defense counsel knowledgeable and skilled enough to secure an acquittal. The lawyers at Fridman Fels & Soto, PLLC are skilled trial lawyers and white-collar criminal defense attorneys who have the knowledge and experience—and track record—to win when the government comes knocking. 

As these rulings continue to influence legal strategies and courtroom procedures, defendants and their attorneys must remain vigilant in protecting their rights. The Supreme Court’s interpretations of constitutional protections in these cases will likely reverberate throughout lower courts, shaping the future of criminal procedure in the United States.