Hunter v. United States · ¶120
Even if this Court had a general supervisory power, it could not justify the Court's new miscarriage-of-justice exception to appeal waivers. The supervisory power “deal[s] strictly with the courts' power to control their own procedures,” but does not authorize setting substantive standards. United States v. Williams, 504 U. S. 36, 45–47 (1992). When it has been invoked, it has had the more limited scope of protecting judicial “proceedings,” Degen v. United States, 517 U. S. 820, 823 (1996), through “rules of evidence and procedure that are binding” in lower courts, Dickerson v. United States, 530 U. S. 428, 437 (2000). The typical supervisory power cases thus govern issues related to trial administration, such as jury selection rules and processes, Thiel v. Southern Pacifc Co., 328 U. S. 217, 225 (1946); Rosales- Lopez v. United States, 451 U. S. 182, 192 (1981) (plurality opinion),…Read in context ›
preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.