Martel v. Clair

Docket No.	Op. Below	Argument	Opinion	Vote	Author	Term
10-1265	9th Cir.	Dec 6, 2011 Tr.Aud.	Mar 5, 2012	9-0	Kagan	OT 2011

Holding: When evaluating motions to substitute counsel in capital cases under 18 U. S. C. § 3599, courts should employ the same “interests of justice” standard that applies in non-capital cases under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A. In this case, the district court did no abuse its discretion when, using the “interests of justice” standard, it denied Clair’s second request for new counsel. The Ninth Circuit erred in overturning that denial.

Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Kagan on March 5, 2012.

SCOTUSblog Coverage

• Opinion analysis: Rejecting a standard that "comes from . . . . well, from nowhere” (Edward Hartnett)
• Argument recap: Made-up standards, unjustified innuendo, and untested fingerprints (Edward Hartnett)
• Argument preview: Replacing habeas counsel for death row inmates (Edward Hartnett)

Briefs and Documents

Merits Briefs for the Petitioner

• Brief for Michael Martel
• Reply brief for Michael Martel

Merits Briefs for the Respondent

• Brief for Kenneth Clair

Amicus Briefs in Support of the Petitioner

• Brief for Florida et al.

Certiorari-stage documents

• Opinion below (9th Circuit)

• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Petitioner’s reply