Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

07-330 Greenlaw v. U.S.

By: dmc-admin//June 23, 2008//

07-330 Greenlaw v. U.S.

By: dmc-admin//June 23, 2008//

Listen to this article

Criminal Procedure
Cross-appeal; sentence

Absent a Government appeal or cross-appeal, the court of appeals can not, on its own initiative, order an increase in a defendant's sentence.

In both civil and criminal cases, in the first instance and on appeal, courts follow the principle of party presentation, i.e., the parties frame the issues for decision and the courts generally serve as neutral arbiters of matters the parties present. To the extent courts have approved departures from the party presentation principle in criminal cases, the justification has usually been to protect a pro se litigant's rights. See Castro v. United States, 540 U. S. 375 . The cross-appeal rule, pivotal in this case, is both informed by, and illustrative of, the party presentation principle. Under that rule, it takes a cross-appeal to justify a remedy in favor of an appellee. See McDonough v. Dannery, 3 Dall. 188. This Court has called the rule "inveterate and certain," Morley Constr. Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co., 300 U. S. 185 , and has in no case ordered an exception to it, El Paso Natural Gas Co. v. Neztsosie, 526 U. S. 473 . No exception is warranted here. Congress has specified that when a United States Attorney files a notice of appeal with respect to a criminal sentence, "[t]he Government may not further prosecute [the] appeal without the personal approval of the Attorney General, the Solicitor General, or a deputy solicitor general designated by the Solicitor General." 18 U. S. C. §3742(b). This provision gives the top representatives of the United States in litigation the prerogative to seek or forgo appellate correction of sentencing errors, however plain they may be.

481 F. 3d 601, vacated and remanded.

Local effect: The decision is consistent with governing Seventh Circuit precedent, U.S. v.

Rivera, 411 F.3d 864 (7th Cir. 2005).

07-330 Greenlaw v. U.S.

Ginsburg, J.; Breyer, J., concurring; Alito, J., dissenting.

Full Text

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests