Premo v. Moore
|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
Oct 12, 2010
|Jan 19, 2011||8-0||Kennedy||OT 2010|
Holding: The defense counsel was not ineffective and the habeas petitioner was not in any event prejudiced by his counsel's actions. (Kagan, J., recused).
Plain English Holding: The criminal defendant did not meet the high standard required by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act for obtaining federal habeas relief on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.
Judgment: Reversed, 8-0, in an opinion by Justice Kennedy on January 19, 2011. (Kagan, J., recused).
- Opinion analysis: Court upholds plea bargain against habeas challenge (James Bickford)
- January at the Court: In Plain English (Lisa McElroy)
- October's arguments in Plain English (Lisa McElroy)
- Argument preview: Excludable confessions and effective counsel (James Bickford)
Briefs and Documents
- Brief for Petitioner Jeff Premo, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary
- Brief for Respondent Randy Joseph Moore
- Reply Brief for Petitioner Jeff Premo, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary (reprint)
- Brief for the States of South Carolina, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado Delaware, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for Criminal Justice Legal Foundation in Support of Petitioner
- Opinion below (9th Circuit)
- Petition for certiorari (unavailable)
- Petitioner’s reply (unavailable)