Martel v. Clair

Docket No.
Op. Below
Argument
Dec 6, 2011
Tr.Aud.
Opinion
Vote
9-0
Author
Kagan
Term

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.

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Briefs and Documents

CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY

Merits Briefs for the Petitioner

Merits Briefs for the Respondent

Amicus Briefs in Support of the Petitioner

[##CERT-STAGE##]

CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY