Martel v. Clair
|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
Dec 6, 2011
|Mar 5, 2012||9-0||Kagan||OT 2011|
Holding: When evaluating motions to substitute counsel in capital cases under 18 U. S. C. § 3599, courts should employ the same “interests of justice” standard that applies in non-capital cases under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A. In this case, the district court did no abuse its discretion when, using the “interests of justice” standard, it denied Clair’s second request for new counsel. The Ninth Circuit erred in overturning that denial.
Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Kagan on March 5, 2012.
- Opinion analysis: Rejecting a standard that "comes from . . . . well, from nowhere” (Edward Hartnett)
- Argument recap: Made-up standards, unjustified innuendo, and untested fingerprints (Edward Hartnett)
- Argument preview: Replacing habeas counsel for death row inmates (Edward Hartnett)
Briefs and Documents
Merits Briefs for the Petitioner
Merits Briefs for the Respondent
Amicus Briefs in Support of the Petitioner
- Opinion below (9th Circuit)