Johnson v. Alabama
Petition granted, judgment vacated, and petition remanded to the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals for further consideration in light of the position asserted by the respondent in its brief filed on May 10, 2017 on June 26, 2017.
Issue: Whether a state court can enforce a rule that Brady v. Maryland does not apply to impeachment evidence when the Supreme Court has held that Brady does apply to impeachment evidence.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders (key to color coding)|
|Feb 2 2017||Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due March 10, 2017)|
|Mar 3 2017||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including April 10, 2017.|
|Mar 10 2017||Brief amicus curiae of Death Row Exoneree 138 Anthony Graves filed.|
|Apr 7 2017||Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including May 10, 2017.|
|May 10 2017||Brief of respondent Alabama in opposition filed.|
|May 19 2017||Reply of petitioner Toforest Onesha Johnson filed.|
|May 24 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 8, 2017.|
|Jun 12 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 15, 2017.|
|Jun 19 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 22, 2017.|
|Jun 26 2017||Motion to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for a writ of certiorari GRANTED. Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED for further consideration in light of the position asserted by the respondent in its brief filed on May 10, 2017.
The CHIEF JUSTICE, with whom JUSTICE THOMAS, JUSTICE ALITO, and JUSTICE GORSUCH join, dissenting: The Court vacates the judgment below in light of the position asserted by the respondent in its brief. That position is that the Court should vacate a state court judgment for further consideration in light of Ex parte Beckworth, 190 So. 3d 571 (Ala. 2013). Beckworth is a state court decision that turns entirely on state procedural law. It was expressly called to the attention of the state courts, which declined to upset the decision below in light of it. Reply to Pet. for Cert. 2, n. 1. The question presented concerns state collateral reviewpurely a creature of state law that need not be provided at all. Whatever ones view on the propriety of our practice of vacating judgments based on positions of the parties, see Hicks v. United States, 582 U. S. ___ (2017), the Courts decision to vacate this state court judgment is truly extraordinary. I respectfully dissent.|
|Jul 28 2017||MANDATE ISSUED.|
|Jul 28 2017||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|