|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
Issue: (1) Whether South Carolina violated petitioner’s federal due process right to present his full defense under Washington v. Texas and Chambers v. Mississippi, while replicating its error in Holmes v. South Carolina by arbitrarily applying state evidentiary rules to exclude a wealth of highly relevant and reliable evidence about the true perpetrator’s modus operandi and out-of-court admissions that tended to prove that the perpetrator raped and murdered petitioner’s child by himself, rather than in some sort of improbable collaboration with petitioner; and (2) whether, despite this Court’s unanimous decision in Holmes v. South Carolina, South Carolina erroneously evaluated petitioner’s federal constitutional challenge to the exclusion of defense evidence in light of the prosecution’s evidence and theory of guilt, while failing to consider the actual issues raised by the defense or the purposes of the evidentiary rules at issue.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Nov 6 2013||Application (13A479) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from November 26, 2013 to January 25, 2014, submitted to The Chief Justice.|
|Nov 8 2013||Application (13A479) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until January 25, 2014.|
|Jan 24 2014||Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due February 27, 2014)|
|Feb 12 2014||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioner.|
|Feb 25 2014||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or neither party, received from counsel for respondent.|
|Feb 26 2014||Waiver of right of respondent South Carolina to respond filed.|
|Feb 27 2014||Brief amicus curiae of The National Innocence Network filed.|
|Feb 27 2014||Brief amici curiae of Professors of Evidence Law filed.|
|Mar 6 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 21, 2014.|
|Mar 6 2014||Response Requested . (Due April 7, 2014)|
|Apr 8 2014||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including May 6, 2014.|
|May 13 2014||Brief of respondent South Carolina in opposition filed.|
|May 16 2014||Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including May 13, 2014.|
|May 23 2014||Reply of petitioner Billy Wayne Cope filed.|
|Jun 4 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 19, 2014.|
|Jun 24 2014||Record Requested .|
|Jul 15 2014||Record received from the Supreme Court of South Carolina (1 envelope).|
|Jul 17 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 29, 2014.|
|Oct 6 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of October 10, 2014.|
|Oct 14 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of October 17, 2014.|
|Oct 20 2014||Petition DENIED.|
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 ...
We're so excited about our April 15 Live Webinar (w/ @HarvardACS & @HarvardFedSoc), Covering the Court, featuring an all-star lineup of panelists @jduffyrice, @katieleebarlow, @whignewtons, & @stevenmazie! _👩⚖️👩⚖️👩⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️_ Register here ➡️ https://harvard.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_k_b_9IPBQ_GV37rpsjF9kw
Senator Markey (D-Ma) is delivering remarks right now in front of the Supreme Court introducing the Judiciary Act of 2021 to expand the court to 13 justices. He’s flanked by Chairman of House Judiciary, Jerry Nadler (D-NY), and Hank Johnson (D-Ga).
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:
Cast your vote below!
The “great chief” and the “super chief”: A final showdown in Supreme Court March Madness - SCOTUSblog
Forget Ali vs. Frazier, Celtics vs. Lakers, or Evert vs. Navratilova. It’s time for Marshall vs. Warren. After...
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.