|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|18-7277||4th Cir.||N/A||N/A||N/A||N/A||OT 2018|
Issues: (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit erred when it found no constitutional error when the state failed to disclose Brady evidence, a letter from a jailhouse snitch, until the post-trial hearing for a motion for a new trial; (2) whether the state and federal courts’ decisions were contrary to Giglio v. United States, United States v. Bagley, Brady v. Maryland and Napue v. Illinois when the state failed to disclose material impeachment evidence, a letter from a jailhouse snitch who testified that petitioner confessed to him; and (3) whether the state and federal courts erred in finding that trial counsel rendered effective assistance of counsel when he failed to interview Michael Jones and call him as a witness.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Nov 20 2018||Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due February 6, 2019)|
|Jan 17 2019||Waiver of right of respondent Joseph McFadden to respond filed.|
|Jan 31 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/15/2019.|
|Feb 11 2019||Response Requested. (Due March 13, 2019)|
|Feb 11 2019||Record Requested.|
|Feb 12 2019||Record received from the USCA-4th Circuit. The record is available on PACER.|
|Feb 13 2019||Record received from the USDC-SC. One restricted item was transmitted electronically, and the remainder of the record is available on PACER.|
|Mar 13 2019||Brief of respondent Joseph McFadden in opposition filed.|
|Mar 28 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/12/2019.|
|Apr 15 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/18/2019.|
|Apr 22 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/26/2019.|
|May 06 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/9/2019.|
|May 13 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/16/2019.|
|May 20 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/23/2019.|
|May 28 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/30/2019.|
|Jun 03 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/6/2019.|
|Jun 10 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/13/2019.|
|Jun 17 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/20/2019.|
|Jun 26 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/27/2019.|
|Jun 28 2019||Petition DENIED. Justice Sotomayor, dissenting from denial of certiorari. (Detached Opinion)|
|Jul 16 2019||Petition for Rehearing filed.|
|Aug 14 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/1/2019.|
|Oct 07 2019||Rehearing DENIED.|
The Mar-a-Lago case arrives at the Supreme Court. Here's an explainer on today's filing from @katieleebarlow, who notes that this isn't the first time Trump has asked the justices to intervene in fights over sensitive documents. (Both other times, the court ruled against him.)
In today's Voting Rights Act case, the conservative majority seemed likely to side with Alabama, though perhaps on narrower grounds than the state asked for. Here's @AHoweBlogger's analysis, plus courtroom sketches from Bill Hennessy (AKA @Artisbest).
Conservative justices seem poised to uphold Alabama’s redistricting plan in Voting Rights Act challenge - SCOTUSblog
In February, a divided Supreme Court temporarily blocked a ruling by a three-judge district court in Alabama, which ...
BREAKING: Donald Trump's lawyers have filed an emergency request asking the Supreme Court to intervene in the case over classified documents at Mar-a-Lago. Trump wants SCOTUS to vacate a Sept. 21 ruling by the 11th Circuit. Here is the filing: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/22A283.pdf
Today at SCOTUS: voting rights and veterans' benefits.
First up is Merrill v. Milligan, a case about Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and how to decide if a state's redistricting plan dilutes Black voting power. @AHoweBlogger explains:
When are majority-Black voting districts required? In Alabama case, the justices will review that question. - SCOTUSblog
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act bars election practices that result in a denial or abridgement of the right ...
Our first TikTok of the new term. @katieleebarlow breaks down opening day.