|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|17-6943||Okla. Crim. App.||N/A||N/A||N/A||N/A||OT 2018|
Issues: (1) Whether a complex statistical study that indicates a risk that racial considerations enter into Oklahoma’s capital-sentencing determinations proves that the petitioner’s death sentence is unconstitutional under the Sixth, Eighth and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution; and (2) whether Oklahoma’s capital post-conviction statute, Okla. Stat. Ann. tit. 22 § 1089(D)(8)(b), and the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals’ application of the statute in this case, denies the petitioner an adequate corrective process for the hearing and determination of his newly available federal constitutional claim in violation of his rights under the 14th Amendment’s due process and equal protection clauses.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Nov 28 2017||Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due January 2, 2018)|
|Dec 21 2017||Motion to extend the time to file a response from January 2, 2018 to February 1, 2018, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Dec 27 2017||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including February 1, 2018.|
|Jan 29 2018||Brief of respondent State Of Oklahoma in opposition filed.|
|Feb 12 2018||Reply of petitioner Julius Jones filed.|
|Feb 15 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/2/2018.|
|Feb 27 2018||Rescheduled.|
|Mar 12 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/16/2018.|
|Mar 13 2018||Rescheduled.|
|Mar 19 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/23/2018.|
|Mar 20 2018||Rescheduled.|
|Mar 26 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/29/2018.|
|Mar 27 2018||Rescheduled.|
|Apr 09 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/13/2018.|
|Apr 10 2018||Rescheduled.|
|Apr 16 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/20/2018.|
|Apr 18 2018||Rescheduled.|
|Apr 23 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/27/2018.|
|Apr 27 2018||Rescheduled.|
|May 07 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/10/2018.|
|May 09 2018||Rescheduled.|
|May 14 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/17/2018.|
|May 21 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/24/2018.|
|May 23 2018||Rescheduled.|
|May 29 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/31/2018.|
|May 31 2018||Rescheduled.|
|Jun 04 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/7/2018.|
|Jun 06 2018||Rescheduled.|
|Jun 11 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/14/2018.|
|Jun 13 2018||Rescheduled.|
|Jun 18 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/21/2018.|
|Jun 19 2018||Rescheduled.|
|Sep 06 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/24/2018.|
|Sep 11 2018||Rescheduled.|
|Oct 01 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/5/2018.|
|Oct 01 2018||Rescheduled.|
|Oct 09 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/12/2018.|
|Oct 09 2018||Rescheduled.|
|Oct 22 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/26/2018.|
|Oct 22 2018||Rescheduled.|
|Oct 29 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/2/2018.|
|Oct 29 2018||Rescheduled.|
|Nov 05 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/9/2018.|
|Nov 05 2018||Rescheduled.|
|Nov 13 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/16/2018.|
|Nov 13 2018||Rescheduled.|
|Nov 26 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/30/2018.|
|Nov 27 2018||Rescheduled.|
|Dec 03 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/7/2018.|
|Dec 03 2018||Rescheduled.|
|Dec 20 2018||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/4/2019.|
|Jan 03 2019||Rescheduled.|
|Jan 07 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/11/2019.|
|Jan 07 2019||Rescheduled.|
|Jan 14 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/18/2019.|
|Jan 22 2019||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.