The U.S. Supreme Court's new term begins this week. There are 10 cases scheduled for argument during the "October Sitting" of the Court. Five of those cases are focused on criminal law.

According to Rory Little, writing at the SCOTUSblog, the Court's oral arguments for October focus on constitutional criminal law. Those cases include the Fourth Amendment's protection from unreasonable searches, the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel and the Eighth Amendment's treatment of the death penalty.

The first case argued before the nine justices this term was the case of David Villarreal. He was on trial for murder in Texas in 2018. Villarreal engaged in a drug-fueled argument with his roommate. Their argument turned physical — Villarreal said his roommate was strangling him and he feared for his life — he fatally stabbed his roommate.

Villarreal took the stand as the only defense witness, but the judge had a scheduling conflict that arose during Villarreal's testimony. So, in the middle of Villarreal's direct examination, the judge declared a 24-hour recess and instructed Villarreal and his attorneys not to talk about his testimony during the recess.

The Sixth Amendment guarantees that people accused of crimes shall "have the assistance of counsel for his defense" in criminal prosecutions. Nearly a half-century ago, the Court ruled that any limitation on a defendant conferring with their attorney during an overnight recess violated the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel.

Later, the high Court limited defense counsel's opportunity to discuss testimony with a defendant during a short recess.

During Villarreal's argument on day one of the term, Madiba K. Dennie at the blog "Balls and Strikes" reported an unlikely alliance between Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.

"In the judge's instructions, he said: 'I don't want you discussing what you couldn't discuss with him if he was on the stand in front of the jury,'" Justice Thomas asked Villarreal's lawyer, "What's wrong with that?"

Justice Jackson said Thomas was making "a critical point." If a lawyer can't prep the witness while they're on the stand, Jackson asked, "Why should he be allowed to do so during an overnight recess?" Jackson also emphasized that the trial court wasn't making a big imposition: Under this rule, a defendant could still talk to their lawyer, but not about their testimony — in Jackson's words, "just eliminating that very narrow category of conduct."

The Fourth Amendment will be tested later in the term. William Trevor Case's ex-girlfriend told the police that Case was threatening suicide. The police spoke with Case for about 40 minutes outside his home. Officers then entered his home without a warrant.

The entry is the issue before the Court. The case sought to suppress the evidence collected during the "illegal" entry. The motion was denied, and he was convicted. The Montana Supreme Court affirmed his conviction.

In 2006, the Supreme Court found that an "objectively reasonable basis" is required for warrantless "emergency aid" home entries. Little, asks at SCOTUSblog, does an "objectively reasonable basis" mean the same level of suspicion as "probable cause" that is required to get a search warrant? Or is some lesser degree of suspicion, say "reasonable suspicion," used to make an investigatory detention, sufficient for an emergency warrantless entry?

Finally, on November 4, the Court will be asked to specify more clearly how lower courts should analyze whether a capital defendant is so intellectually disabled that they may not be executed. In 2002, the high Court in Atkins v. Virginia held that the intellectually disabled could not be executed. But the Court never defined intellectual disability. The Court will decide this specific question during the new term — "Whether and how courts may consider the cumulative effect of multiple IQ scores in assessing an Atkins claim."

This will be an interesting term - if the high Court can pull itself away from President Donald Trump's ever-increasing emergency petitions.

Matthew T. Mangino is of counsel with Luxenberg, Garbett, Kelly & George P.C. His book The Executioner's Toll, 2010, was released by McFarland Publishing. You can reach him at www.mattmangino.com and follow him on Twitter @MatthewTMangino

Photo credit: Clarisse Meyer at Unsplash