|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|19-311||4th Cir.||N/A||N/A||N/A||N/A||OT 2019|
Issues: (1) Whether, in review of a state decision under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, when a federal appellate court must determine if double-jeopardy protection bars retrial after a mistrial is granted over a defendant’s objection based upon the absence of a critical prosecution witness, the required strict scrutiny applied to the legal determination of manifest necessity constrains in equal or greater measure the deference universally accorded a trial court’s fact-finding; and (2) whether in granting relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit egregiously failed to apply clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court in Arizona v. Washington and accord deference to the state court’s ruling finding manifest necessity for mistrial when it resolved that omission of a reference to consideration of alternatives in the court’s oral ruling made the ruling fatally insufficient even though the record shows the state court did not act rashly in granting a mistrial, but pursued a cautious approach that included suspending the trial to allow a search for the missing witness prior to considering and granting the state’s mistrial motion.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Sep 03 2019||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 7, 2019)|
|Oct 03 2019||Waiver of right of respondent Broderick Seay to respond filed.|
|Oct 09 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/1/2019.|
|Oct 15 2019||Response Requested. (Due November 14, 2019)|
|Nov 14 2019||Brief of respondent Broderick Seay in opposition filed.|
|Nov 14 2019||Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by respondent Broderick Seay.|
|Nov 26 2019||Reply of petitioner Al Cannon filed.|
|Dec 04 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/10/2020.|
|Jan 13 2020||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/17/2020.|
|Jan 21 2020||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/24/2020.|
|Feb 14 2020||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/21/2020.|
|Feb 24 2020||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/28/2020.|
|Mar 02 2020||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/6/2020.|
|Mar 16 2020||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/20/2020.|
|Mar 23 2020||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/27/2020.|
|Mar 30 2020||Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by respondent GRANTED.|
|Mar 30 2020||Petition DENIED. Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, and Justice Kavanaugh would grant the petition for a writ of certiorari.|
The clerk of the court just notified counsel in a juvenile sentencing case—that was sent back to a lower court this week in light of the court's decision in Jones v. Mississippi—that Justice Kagan unwittingly failed to recuse herself after participating in part of the case as SG.
It’s a quiet week, so now is a great time to listen to Judge John Owens regale @AHoweBlogger with the tale of Ashton Embry and the greatest leak in Supreme Court history.
Come for the high drama, stay for the good humor and an RBG story or two.
The biggest leak in Supreme Court history - SCOTUSblog
In a city full of anonymous sources, the Supreme Court is famously leak-proof. But a century ago, the court had ...
The US Supreme Court should overturn the Facebook’s “Oversight Board’s” “ruling” which upholds the outlawing of the 45th President of the United States from social media.
This is a big tech, corporate oligarchy without standing and it’s gone too far. Enough is enough.
The Supreme Court will hear its last case of the term today at 10:00 a.m. EDT.
Here’s a summary of Terry v. United States in a TikTok minute.
Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will tackle the legacy of the Reagan-era War on Drugs and Congress' attempt to reduce the punishment disparity between crack-cocaine and powder cocaine offenses.
As @ekownyankah notes, this case has a little bit of everything.
In final case the court will hear this term, profound issues of race, incarceration and the war on drugs - SCOTUSblog
Academics naturally believe that even obscure cases in their field are underappreciated; each minor tax or bankruptcy ...
JUST IN: Another shadow-docket filing in which a church argues that state COVID-related restrictions lack sufficient carveouts for religious worship. This one challenges Colorado's restrictions. It relies heavily on last month's ruling in Tandon v. Newsom.
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.