As the Supreme Court kicks off another term this week, 我们应该明确一件事:9名身着黑袍的律师不会结束美国的大规模监禁和系统性种族主义. Not this term, not any. That doesn’t, however, 意味着从现在到六月之间的刑事案件的辩论和判决是无关紧要的. The Justices could, if they choose, 对地方官员——警察——的权力进行有意义的限制, prosecutors, 法官——并对关键的宪法保护给予更严厉的制裁. 这就是为什么美国公民自由联盟密切跟踪这些案件，并参与许多案件. They matter.
That said, we should be clear-eyed about what the justices can do, what they can’t do, and how you can fill in the gaps. 考虑到这一点，这里有三种情况值得你注意:
Thompson v. Clark (argument Oct. 12, 2021)
In 2014, 拉里·汤普森要求查看搜查令，但他们没有出示搜查令，于是纽约警察错误地闯入了他位于布鲁克林的家中，将他按倒在地. 为了推卸责任，警官们诬告他拒捕. When the charges were finally dropped, Thompson sued the police, arguing that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated. But New York federal judges tossed the case. 他们裁定，汤普森必须表现出“明确的清白迹象”，才能提起诉讼.
This makes no sense. 被指控犯罪的人在被证明有罪之前被假定无罪, 他们可能没有时间和资源在指控撤销前证明自己的清白. Instead, 撤销指控本身应足以表明刑事诉讼的结束对被告有利, and a civil rights case can begin.
- What the justices could do: 通过拒绝“实际表明无罪”的标准来支持无罪推定和执法问责.
- What they can’t do: End law enforcement abuses and cover-ups, so that the next Larry Thompson is never assaulted at all, much less falsely accused of assault himself.
- What you can do to fill the gap: Vote for prosecutors, sheriffs, judges, and mayors who commit to changing police abuses; lobby for legislation that eliminates the myriad procedural bars 到民事权利诉讼在执法机关周围竖起了一个几乎无法穿透的保护壳.
Frasier v. Evans (argument not yet granted)
说到对警察问责的程序障碍，当然存在 qualified immunity, 如果法律没有“明确确立”，警察和其他政府官员就可以免于违反宪法.“实际上，这是一个几乎不可能达到的标准. 在乔治·弗洛伊德(George Floyd)和布里奥纳·泰勒(Breonna Taylor)被谋杀后的种族正义起义中，合格豁免及其致命缺陷获得了全国的认可, but we’re still awaiting its elimination.
在这起案件中，李维·弗雷泽(Levi Frasier)录下了丹佛警察殴打一名男子头部的画面. 随后，警察没收了弗雷泽的平板电脑，试图删除视频. Frasier rightly sued under the First Amendment, and the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals (wrongly, 我们认为)给予这些官员有条件的豁免权——尽管他们受过培训，允许公众对他们进行录音.
- What the justices could do: 确认记录警察工作的明确权利，并完全取消有限制的豁免. 因为限制豁免一开始就是法官制定的原则, the Justices could simply eliminate qualified immunity. This would be a game-changer.
- What they can’t do: Stop police from punching people in the face.
- What you can do fill in the gap: 与此同时，我们继续向法庭施压，要求其解决附带豁免问题, 你可以游说你的联邦和州议员通过法规来废除它. Colorado is a good example. Since this case was filed, Colorado has taken steps to eliminate qualified immunity for state civil rights actions. 在实地，倡导可以创造必要的势头，推动州和地方行为者填补联邦最高法院拒绝解决的空白.
Hemphill v. State of New York (argument Oct. 5, 2021)
Here, 布朗克斯区的检察官指控一名叫尼古拉斯·莫里斯的男子谋杀，他在街上的一场大型打斗中开枪打死了一个人. Morris’ case ended in a mistrial. The prosecutors, undeterred, then charged Darrell Hemphill for the same murder, arguing he was the real gunman during the fight. Unsurprisingly, Hemphill implicated Morris. 检察官随后介绍了莫里斯与亨普希尔的故事相矛盾的陈述, but without producing Morris himself to testify in court. The judge allowed Morris’s hearsay statement into evidence, claiming that, without it, Hemphill’s defense would “mislead” the jury. 亨普希尔目前因谋杀罪服刑25年，他认为宪法保障了他在法庭上直接盘问莫里斯的权利.
- What the justices could do: 确认第六修正案的对抗条款是铁板钉钉的, 法官也不能因为辩方在某种程度上具有误导性而轻易放弃. It’s the jury’s job to decide the truth, not the judge’s.
- What they can’t do: 有意地削减检察官和法官规避审判权利的自由裁量权, including trials themselves.
- What you can do to fill in the gap: 请再一次投票给认真履行宪法义务的检察官和法官. 与此同时，支持我们的诉讼和立法努力 cut back on pretrial detention, eliminate coercive plea bargaining, 采取其他措施，在被指控犯罪的人和指控他们的人之间建立公平的竞争环境.
当然还有其他重要的刑法案例，包括 Shinn v. Ramirez关于联邦法院在人身保护令申请期间收集证据的权力，以及 Wooden v. United States，关于哪些先前的行为可以引发对持有枪支的过度严厉的联邦判决. 在移民和国家安全方面也有接近刑事司法的案件, plus cases that have yet to be granted.
More important than the outcome of any one case, however, 我们应该学会分析最高法院，看看它能为陷入司法系统失灵齿轮中的人们做些什么，不能做些什么，然后努力弥补这一差距.
