|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|13-6440||Ala.||Not Argued||Feb 24, 2014||N/A||Per Curiam||OT 2013|
Holding: The failure of the lawyer for a defendant in a capital murder trial to seek additional funds to hire, as a replacement for an expert whom he knew to be inadequate, an expert to rebut the core of the prosecution's case was unreasonable, and therefore constitutionally deficient, when that failure was based not on any strategic decision, but rather on a mistaken belief that available funding was capped at $1,000. The Court therefore summarily vacated the judgment below and remanded the case for reconsideration of whether the attorney's deficient performance was prejudicial.
Judgment: Vacated and remanded in a per curiam opinion on February 24, 2014.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Jul 3 2013||Application (13A40) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from July 18, 2013 to September 16, 2013, submitted to Justice Thomas.|
|Jul 15 2013||Application (13A40) granted by Justice Thomas extending the time to file until September 16, 2013.|
|Sep 16 2013||Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due October 21, 2013)|
|Oct 15 2013||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including November 20, 2013.|
|Oct 21 2013||Brief amicus curiae of The Constitution Project filed.|
|Nov 13 2013||Brief of respondent Alabama in opposition filed.|
|Nov 22 2013||Reply of petitioner Anthony Ray Hinton filed.|
|Nov 27 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 13, 2013.|
|Dec 4 2013||Record Requested .|
|Jan 8 2014||Record received. Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama (1 envelope)|
|Jan 9 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 24, 2014.|
|Feb 10 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 21, 2014.|
|Feb 24 2014||Motion to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for a writ of certiorari GRANTED. Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED. Opinion per curiam. (Detached Opinion)|
|Mar 28 2014||MANDATE ISSUED.|
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.