|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|13-5967||Ill.||Not Argued||May 27, 2014||TBD||Per Curiam||OT 2013|
Issue: Whether a defendant is acquitted for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, where a court grants a motion for directed verdict after the prosecution refuses to present any evidence at trial to the empaneled and sworn jury.
Judgment: Granted, reversed in a per curiam opinion on May 27, 2014.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Aug 16 2013||Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due September 20, 2013)|
|Aug 28 2013||Waiver of right of respondent Illinois to respond filed.|
|Sep 12 2013||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 30, 2013.|
|Sep 20 2013||Response Requested . (Due October 21, 2013)|
|Oct 16 2013||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including December 20, 2013.|
|Dec 20 2013||Brief of respondent Illinois in opposition filed.|
|Dec 30 2013||Reply of petitioner Esteban Martinez filed.|
|Jan 9 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 24, 2014.|
|Jan 24 2014||Record Requested .|
|Feb 5 2014||Received record from the Supreme Court of Illinois (1 envelope).|
|Feb 10 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 21, 2014.|
|Feb 11 2014||Received record from the State of Illinois Appellate Court Second District (1 envelope).|
|Feb 24 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 28, 2014.|
|Mar 3 2014||Record received from the Kane County Circuit Court, State of Illinois (1 envelope).|
|Mar 3 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 7, 2014.|
|Mar 10 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 21, 2014.|
|Mar 24 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 28, 2014.|
|Mar 31 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 4, 2014.|
|Apr 7 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 18, 2014.|
|Apr 21 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 25, 2014.|
|Apr 28 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 2, 2014.|
|May 5 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 15, 2014.|
|May 19 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 22, 2014.|
|May 27 2014||Motion to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for a writ of certiorari GRANTED. Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Opinion per curiam. (Detached Opinion)|
|Jun 23 2014||Petition for Rehearing filed.|
|Jun 26 2014||DISTRIBUTED.|
|Jul 21 2014||The petitioner is requested to file a response to the petition for rehearing within 30 days.|
|Aug 5 2014||Response to petition for rehearing from petitioner filed.|
|Aug 13 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 29, 2014.|
|Oct 6 2014||Rehearing DENIED.|
|Oct 6 2014||MANDATE ISSUED.|
|Oct 9 2014||All records in this case have been returned. (Supreme Court of Illinois, State of Illinois Appellate Court 2nd District, and Kane County Circuit Court 16th Judicial Circuit)|
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.