|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|14-452||Kan.||Oct 7, 2015||Jan 20, 2016||8-1||Scalia||OT 2015|
Holding: 1) The Eighth Amendment does not require capital-sentencing courts to instruct a jury that mitigating circumstances need not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. 2) The Constitution did not require severance of joint sentencing proceedings because the contention that the admission of mitigating evidence by one defendant could have "so infected" the jury's consideration of the other defendant's sentence as to amount to a denial of due process does not stand in light of all the evidence presented at the guilty and penalty phases relevant to the jury's sentencing determination.
Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 8-1, in an opinion by Justice Scalia on January 20, 2016. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Oct 16 2014||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 19, 2014)|
|Dec 2 2014||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including December 19, 2014.|
|Dec 19 2014||Brief of respondent Sidney J. Gleason in opposition filed.|
|Dec 19 2014||Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by respondent Sidney J. Gleason.|
|Dec 30 2014||Reply of petitioner Kansas filed.|
|Jan 7 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 23, 2015.|
|Feb 9 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 20, 2015.|
|Feb 23 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 27, 2015.|
|Mar 2 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 6, 2015.|
|Mar 9 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 20, 2015.|
|Mar 23 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 27, 2015.|
|Mar 30 2015||Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by respondent GRANTED.|
|Mar 30 2015||Petition GRANTED.|
|Apr 13 2015||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs in support of either party or of neither party recieved from counsel for the petitioner.|
|Apr 21 2015||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including June 8, 2015.|
|Apr 21 2015||The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including August 3, 2015.|
|Jun 8 2015||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed)|
|Jun 8 2015||Brief of petitioner Kansas filed.|
|Jun 11 2015||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the respondent.|
|Jun 12 2015||Brief amici curiae of Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, et al. VIDED (See 14-449 & 14-450) filed.|
|Jun 19 2015||Motion for scheduling of argument and for divided argument filed by respondents in Nos. 14-449, 14-450 & 14-452. VIDED.|
|Jun 29 2015||Motion for scheduling of argument and for divided argument filed by respondents in Nos. 14-449, 14-450 & 14-452 GRANTED. VIDED|
|Jun 29 2015||Upon consideration of the joint motion of respondents for scheduling of argument and for divided argument, and of the motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument in Nos. 14- 449 and 14-450, the following allocation of oral argument time is adopted. A total of one hour is allocated for oral argument in No. 14-452, and on Question 1 in Nos. 14-449 and 14-450, to be divided as follows: 30 minutes for petitioner, 20 minutes for respondents Jonathan D. Carr and Sidney J. Gleason, and 10 minutes for respondent Reginald D. Carr. A total of one hour is allocated for oral argument on Question 2 in Nos. 14-449 and 14-450, to be divided as follows: 20 minutes for petitioner, 10 minutes for the Solicitor General, 20 minutes for respondent Reginald D. Carr, and 10 minutes for respondent Jonathan D. Carr. VIDED|
|Jul 29 2015||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Wednesday, October 7, 2015.|
|Aug 3 2015||Brief of respondent Sidney J. Gleason filed.|
|Aug 7 2015||CIRCULATED.|
|Aug 12 2015||Record requested from the Supreme Court of Kansas.|
|Sep 2 2015||Reply of petitioner Kansas (on mitigation instruction question arguments of respondent Gleason, and respondents in 14-449 & 14-450) filed. (Distributed)|
|Sep 17 2015||Record received from the Supreme Court of Kansas. (1 Box). part of the record is electronic.|
|Oct 1 2015||Letter from counsel for petitioner filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 7 2015||Argued (Burden Question). For petitioner: Derek L. Schmidt, Attorney General, Topeka, Kan. For respondent in 14-452 & 14-449: Jeffrey T. Green, Washington, D. C. For respondent in 14-450: Neal K. Katyal, Washington, D. C. VIDED|
|Jan 20 2016||Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Scalia, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Sotomayor, J., filed a dissenting opinion. (Opinion also for Nos. 14-449 & 14-450)|
|Feb 23 2016||Judgment Issued|
|Feb 23 2016||Mandate Issued|
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.