United States v. Orlando Cordia Hall, Also Known as Lan

Status

55 later cases cite United States v. Orlando Cordia Hall, Also Known as Lan; 55 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Treatments

Abrogated

• The Supreme Court rejected the position it attributed to Hall that a defendant's use of a peremptory challenge to remove a juror whom the trial court should have excused for cause impairs the defendant's rights when the seated jury is impartial.

  United States v. Martinez-Salazar · Supreme Court of the United States · filed January 19, 2000

  The First and Fifth Circuits have indicated agreement with the Ninth Circuit that this circumstance constitutes an abridgment of the right to exercise peremptory challenges. See United States v. Cambara, 902 F. 2d 144, 147-148 (CA1 1990); United States v. Hall, 152 F. 3d 381, 408 (CA5 1998). The Tenth and Eleventh Circuits, on the other hand, have found in this situation no impairment of the right to peremptory challenges. See United States v. Brooks, 161 *311F. 3d 1240, 1245-1246 (CA10 1998); United States v. Farmer, 923 F. 2d 1557, 1566 (CA11 1991).1 We granted certiorari, 527 U. S. 1021 (1999), and now reverse the Ninth Circuit’s judgment.

  Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Declined to follow

• The District of Hawaii disagreed with Hall's conclusion that addressing the judge after a federal capital sentencing jury had recommended death sufficed for any right to allocution, and allowed an address to the jury.

  United States v. Chong · District of Hawaii · filed December 7, 1999

  The Fifth Circuit concluded that permitting the Defendant to address the judge before he announced the sentence satisfied any right he might have had. See Hall, 152 F.3d at 392. This Court disagrees with the Fifth Circuit’s conclusion.

  Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Criticized

• The Eastern District of New York criticized the pretrial mental examination practice approved in Hall for capital sentencing mitigation evidence and deferred the examination until after a possible guilty verdict.

  United States v. Taveras · Eastern District of New York · filed February 22, 2006

  Less defensible is the uniform practice of ordering pretrial examination in capital prosecutions where the defendant intends to offer expert mental health evidence only in mitigation at sentencing. See United States v. Fell, 372 F.Supp.2d 753, 761 (D.Vt.2005); United States v. Johnson, 362 F.Supp.2d 1043, 1082 (N.D.Iowa 2005); United States v. Sampson, 335 F.Supp.2d at 242; United States v. Taylor, 320 F.Supp.2d 790, 791 (N.D.Ind.2004). See also United States v. Minerd, 197 F.Supp.2d 272, 275 (W.D.Pa.2002) (in a case decided before amendment of the Rule, taking the same approach to timing of mental examination); United States v. Allen, 247 F.3d 741, 775 (8th Cir.2001) (same) (affirming district court order), cert. denied sub nom. Holder v. United States, 539 U.S. 916, 123 S.Ct. 2273, 156 L.Ed.2d 132 (2003); United States v. Edelin, 134 F.Supp.2d 45, 49 (D.D.C.2001) (same); United States v. Lee, 89 F.Supp.2d 1017, 1019 (E.D.Ark.2000) (same), rev’d on other grounds, 274 F.3d 485 (8th Cir.2001); United States v. Hall, 152 F.3d 381, 398 (5th Cir.1998) (same) (affirming district court order), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1117, 119 S.Ct. 1767, 143 L.Ed.2d 797 (1999), abrogated on other grounds, United States v. Martinez-Salazar, 528 U.S. 304, 120 S.Ct. 774, 145 L.Ed.2d 792 (2000); United States v. Beckford, 962 F.Supp. 748, 762-3 (E.D.Va. 1997) (same); United States v. Haworth, 942 F.Supp. 1406, 1409 (D.N.M.1996) (same); United States v. Vest, 905 F.Supp. 651, 654 (W.D.Mo.1995) (same). This granting of motions for pretrial examination appears to be based on unwarranted comparisons to non-discretionary examination under the Rules pursuant to an insanity defense.

  Read the full opinion on CourtListener →