|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|17-887||7th Cir.||N/A||N/A||N/A||N/A||OT 2017|
Issue: Whether the Indiana procedure that allows trial-counsel Strickland v. Washington claims on direct appeal in one of two ways–defendants may assert the claims in their brief on direct appeal if they choose to make no further record in support of their claims or, if they wish to develop a record, defendants may suspend their direct appeal while they develop the factual record in the trial court–satisfies the Martinez-Trevino doctrine, which allows a federal habeas court to hear a substantial claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel if a state denies a meaningful opportunity to raise the claim on direct appeal.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Oct 05 2017||Application (17A386) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from October 17, 2017 to December 16, 2017, submitted to Justice Kagan.|
|Oct 10 2017||Application (17A386) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until December 16, 2017.|
|Dec 18 2017||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due January 22, 2018)|
|Jan 17 2018||Motion to extend the time to file a response from January 22, 2018 to February 21, 2018, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Jan 22 2018||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including February 21, 2018|
|Feb 21 2018||Brief of respondent Dentrell Brown in opposition filed.|
|Mar 07 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/23/2018.|
|Mar 07 2018||Reply of petitioner Richard Brown, Warden, Wabash Valley Correctional Facility filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 26 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/29/2018.|
|Apr 09 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/13/2018.|
|Apr 16 2018||Petition DENIED.|
The Mar-a-Lago case arrives at the Supreme Court. Here's an explainer on today's filing from @katieleebarlow, who notes that this isn't the first time Trump has asked the justices to intervene in fights over sensitive documents. (Both other times, the court ruled against him.)
In today's Voting Rights Act case, the conservative majority seemed likely to side with Alabama, though perhaps on narrower grounds than the state asked for. Here's @AHoweBlogger's analysis, plus courtroom sketches from Bill Hennessy (AKA @Artisbest).
Conservative justices seem poised to uphold Alabama’s redistricting plan in Voting Rights Act challenge - SCOTUSblog
In February, a divided Supreme Court temporarily blocked a ruling by a three-judge district court in Alabama, which ...
BREAKING: Donald Trump's lawyers have filed an emergency request asking the Supreme Court to intervene in the case over classified documents at Mar-a-Lago. Trump wants SCOTUS to vacate a Sept. 21 ruling by the 11th Circuit. Here is the filing: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/22A283.pdf
Today at SCOTUS: voting rights and veterans' benefits.
First up is Merrill v. Milligan, a case about Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and how to decide if a state's redistricting plan dilutes Black voting power. @AHoweBlogger explains:
When are majority-Black voting districts required? In Alabama case, the justices will review that question. - SCOTUSblog
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act bars election practices that result in a denial or abridgement of the right ...
Our first TikTok of the new term. @katieleebarlow breaks down opening day.