|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|15-537||1st Cir.||Oct 4, 2016||Nov 29, 2016||8-0||Ginsburg||OT 2016|
Disclosure: Vinson & Elkins LLP, whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel on an amicus brief in support of the petitioners in this case.
Holding: The issue-preclusion component of the double jeopardy clause, which bars a second contest of an issue of fact or law raised and necessarily resolved by a prior judgment, does not bar the government from retrying defendants after a jury has returned irreconcilably inconsistent verdicts of conviction and acquittal and the convictions are later vacated for legal error unrelated to the inconsistency.
Judgment: Affirmed, 8-0, in an opinion by Justice Ginsburg on November 29, 2016. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Oct 23 2015||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 27, 2015)|
|Nov 18 2015||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including December 28, 2015.|
|Dec 16 2015||Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including January 27, 2016.|
|Jan 22 2016||Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including February 10, 2016.|
|Feb 10 2016||Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.|
|Feb 23 2016||Reply of petitioners Juan Bravo-Fernandez and Hector Martinez-Maldonado filed.|
|Feb 24 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 18, 2016.|
|Mar 21 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 25, 2016.|
|Mar 28 2016||Petition GRANTED limited to Question 1 presented by the petition.|
|Apr 7 2016||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioners' brief on the merits is extended to and including June 10, 2016.|
|Apr 7 2016||The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including August 12, 2016.|
|Jun 10 2016||Joint appendix filed.|
|Jun 10 2016||Brief of petitioners Juan Bravo-Fernandez and Hector Martinez-Maldonado filed.|
|Jun 17 2016||Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed.|
|Jun 17 2016||Brief amicus curiae of Cato Institute filed.|
|Jun 17 2016||Brief amicus curiae of National Association for Public Defense filed.|
|Jun 17 2016||Brief amici curiae of Criminal Law Professors filed.|
|Jul 13 2016||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Tuesday, October 4, 2016.|
|Jul 22 2016||Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 1st Circuit.|
|Jul 28 2016||Record received from U.S.D.C. District of Puerto Rico is electronic and located on PACER.|
|Jul 29 2016||Record received from the U.S.C.A. 1st Circuit is electroninc and located on PACER with the exception of one Joint Appendix (1 Box).|
|Aug 4 2016||Record received from U.S.D.C. District of Puerto Rico (2 Boxes 1 of which is SEALED).|
|Aug 12 2016||Brief of respondent United States filed. (Corrected copy filed & distributed 9/2/16.)|
|Aug 19 2016||CIRCULATED.|
|Sep 12 2016||Reply of petitioners Juan Bravo-Fernandez and Hector Martinez-Maldonado filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 4 2016||Argued. For petitioners: Lisa S. Blatt, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Elizabeth B. Prelogar, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.|
|Nov 29 2016||Adjudged to be AFFIRMED. Ginsburg, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Thomas, J., filed a concurring opinion.|
|Jan 3 2017||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
In 2019, the Supreme Court limited the scope of a federal law that bans people convicted of felonies from having a gun. Up this morning at the court: back-to-back cases that will decide how many felon-in-possession convictions will need new trials or pleas under that 2019 ruling.
NEW: SCOTUS adds one new case to its docket for next term: Hemphill v. New York, a criminal-procedure case about the interaction between hearsay rules and the right of defendants to confront witnesses against them. Still no action on major petitions involving guns and abortion.
The court will release orders at 9:30 a.m. EDT followed by oral argument in two cases.
First, whether Alaska Native regional and village corporations are “Indian Tribes” for purposes of CARES Act Covid-related relief.
By @StanfordLaw’s Gregory Ablavsky.
Are Alaska Native corporations Indian tribes? A multimillion-dollar question - SCOTUSblog
Are Alaska Native corporations — special corporations that Congress created in 1971 when it resolved Native claims ...
It's official: In the first-ever SCOTUS bracketology tournament, our readers have chosen CHIEF JUSTICE EARL WARREN as the greatest justice in history. The author of Brown v. Board, Loving v. Virginia, and Miranda v. Arizona defeated top-seeded John Marshall in the final round.
We've reached the final round of SCOTUS bracketology, and two illustrious chief justices are facing off for the championship. One wrote Marbury v. Madison. The other wrote Brown v. Board. Our full write-up on both finalists is here: https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/04/the-great-chief-and-the-super-chief-a-final-showdown-in-supreme-court-march-madness/
Cast your vote below!
NEW: The Supreme Court will issue opinion(s?) next Thursday April 22. We’re still waiting on decisions in the ACA case and Fulton v. City of Philadelphia about religious liberty and LGBT rights.
Four Democrats unveiled legislation today to expand the size of the Supreme Court from nine justices to 13 -- but Democratic leaders in both the House and Senate quickly threw cold water on the proposal.
Here's our report from @jamesromoser:
Bill to enlarge the Supreme Court faces dim prospects in Congress - SCOTUSblog
Four congressional Democrats introduced legislation Thursday to expand the number of seats on the Supreme Court from ...
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.