Docket No. | Op. Below | Argument | Opinion | Vote | Author | Term |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
18-1421 | 2d Cir. | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | OT 2019 |
Issues: (1) Whether the court of appeals violated the deferential review requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) by setting aside a state murder conviction based on its de novo analysis of a confrontation claim without fulfilling its obligation to consider the arguments supporting the state court’s denial of the claim or whether fair-minded jurists could agree with the state court’s conclusions; (2) whether the court of appeals misapplied the Supreme Court’s holdings in Bruton v. United States and Tennessee v. Street, and violated Teague v. Lane, by granting habeas relief based on a new rule of law, when it held that the constitutional guarantee of confrontation precludes the admission of inculpatory accomplice statements—even if not admitted for their truth and accompanied by limiting instructions—unless the defendant has testified and the state refrains from referencing the accomplice statements in any manner or expressly disavows the truth of the statements; and (3) whether the court of appeals erred in determining that the state court’s failure to follow its new confrontation rule constituted an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States, when the Supreme Court has never promulgated the new confrontation rule announced by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit.
Date | Proceedings and Orders |
---|---|
May 08 2019 | Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due June 13, 2019) |
Jun 11 2019 | Waiver of right of respondent Mark Orlando to respond filed. |
Jun 12 2019 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/1/2019. |
Jul 24 2019 | Response Requested. (Due August 23, 2019) |
Aug 20 2019 | Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by respondent Mark Orlando. |
Aug 20 2019 | Brief of respondent Mark Orlando in opposition filed. |
Sep 04 2019 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/1/2019. |
Sep 18 2019 | Reply of petitioner Nassau County District Attorney's Office filed. (Distributed) |
Sep 26 2019 | Rescheduled. |
Oct 07 2019 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/11/2019. |
Oct 08 2019 | Rescheduled. |
Oct 15 2019 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/18/2019. |
Oct 17 2019 | Rescheduled. |
Oct 28 2019 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/1/2019. |
Oct 30 2019 | Rescheduled. |
Nov 04 2019 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/8/2019. |
Nov 06 2019 | Rescheduled. |
Nov 12 2019 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/15/2019. |
Nov 13 2019 | Rescheduled. |
Nov 18 2019 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/22/2019. |
Nov 20 2019 | Rescheduled. |
Dec 02 2019 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/6/2019. |
Dec 03 2019 | Rescheduled. |
Dec 09 2019 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/13/2019. |
Dec 09 2019 | Rescheduled. |
Jan 06 2020 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/10/2020. |
Jan 08 2020 | Rescheduled. |
Jan 13 2020 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/17/2020. |
Jan 16 2020 | Rescheduled. |
Jan 21 2020 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/24/2020. |
Jan 22 2020 | Rescheduled. |
Feb 14 2020 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/21/2020. |
Feb 19 2020 | Rescheduled. |
Feb 24 2020 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/28/2020. |
Feb 27 2020 | Rescheduled. |
Mar 02 2020 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/6/2020. |
Mar 02 2020 | Rescheduled. |
Mar 16 2020 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/20/2020. |
Mar 18 2020 | Rescheduled. |
Mar 23 2020 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/27/2020. |
Mar 25 2020 | Rescheduled. |
Mar 30 2020 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/3/2020. |
Apr 01 2020 | Rescheduled. |
Apr 13 2020 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/17/2020. |
Apr 15 2020 | Rescheduled. |
Apr 20 2020 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/24/2020. |
Apr 22 2020 | Rescheduled. |
Apr 27 2020 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/1/2020. |
Apr 29 2020 | Rescheduled. |
May 11 2020 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/15/2020. |
May 18 2020 | Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by respondent GRANTED. |
May 18 2020 | Petition DENIED. |
The Supreme Court rules 6-3 against two men on Arizona's death row who say they received ineffective assistance of counsel in state court. SCOTUS says that federal courts reviewing their cases can't hold evidentiary hearings to fully assess their ineffective-counsel claims.
In a dispute over arbitration rights, the Supreme Court unanimously sides with a Taco Bell worker who sued the franchise owner for wage violations. The dispute involved whether the company waited too long to try to move the lawsuit out of court and into arbitration.
The Supreme Court adds no new cases to its docket in this morning's order list. Stephen Breyer writes a brief statement regarding the court's denial of review in a capital case; he reiterates his doubts about the constitutionality of the death penalty. https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/052322zor_p86a.pdf
Today at SCOTUS: The court will issue orders at 9:30 a.m. EDT, followed by opinions starting at 10. You know the drill: We'll be firing up our live blog and breaking it all down. See you there.
Announcement of orders and opinions for Monday, May 23 - SCOTUSblog
On Monday, May 23, we will be live blogging as the court releases orders from the May 19 conference and opinio...
www.scotusblog.com
Just in: The next Supreme Court opinion day will be next Monday. The court expects to release one or more opinions in argued cases from the current term.