|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|12-246||Tex. Crim. App.||Apr 17, 2013||Jun 17, 2013||5-4||Alito||OT 2012|
Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys work for or contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the co-counsel to the petitioner in this case.
Holding: When petitioner had not yet been placed in custody or received Miranda warnings, and voluntarily responded to some questions by police about a murder, the prosecution’s use of his silence in response to another question as evidence of his guilty at trial did not violate the Fifth Amendment because petitioner failed to expressly invoke his privilege not to incriminate himself in response to the officer’s question.
Judgment: Affirmed, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Alito on June 17, 2013. Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Scalia, concurred only in the judgment. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion joined by Justice Ginsburg, Justice Sotomayor, and Justice Kagan.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Aug 24 2012||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due September 26, 2012)|
|Sep 26 2012||Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed.|
|Sep 26 2012||Waiver of right of respondent Texas to respond filed.|
|Oct 3 2012||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of October 26, 2012.|
|Oct 10 2012||Response Requested . (Due November 9, 2012)|
|Nov 14 2012||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including December 10, 2012.|
|Dec 10 2012||Brief of respondent Texas in opposition filed.|
|Dec 19 2012||Reply of petitioner Genovevo Salinas filed.|
|Dec 19 2012||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 11, 2013.|
|Jan 11 2013||Petition GRANTED.|
|Jan 29 2013||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the respondent.|
|Jan 29 2013||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioner.|
|Feb 11 2013||SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Wednesday, April 17, 2013|
|Feb 20 2013||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs received.)|
|Feb 20 2013||Brief of petitioner Genovevo Salinas filed.|
|Feb 26 2013||Brief amicus curiae of American Civil Liberties Union filed.|
|Feb 27 2013||Brief amicus curiae of American Board of Criminal Lawyers filed.|
|Feb 27 2013||Brief amici curiae of Rutherford Institute, et al. filed.|
|Feb 27 2013||Brief amici curiae of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, et al. filed.|
|Mar 6 2013||Brief amicus curiae of Wayne County, Michigan filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 8 2013||CIRCULATED.|
|Mar 11 2013||Record from Court Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas is electronic.|
|Mar 22 2013||Brief of respondent Texas filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 28 2013||Brief amicus curiae of Criminal Justice Legal Foundation filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 29 2013||Brief amicus curiae of the United States filed. (Distributed)|
|Mar 29 2013||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.|
|Mar 29 2013||Brief amici curiae of Illinois, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 10 2013||Reply of petitioner Genovevo Salinas filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 12 2013||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.|
|Apr 17 2013||Argued. For petitioner: Jeffrey L. Fisher, Stanford, Cal. For respondent: Alan K. Curry, Houston, Tex.; and Ginger D. Anders, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.)|
|Jun 17 2013||Adjudged to be AFFIRMED. Alito, J., announced the judgment of the Court, and delivered an opinion, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy, J., joined. Thomas, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Scalia, J., joined. Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined.|
|Jul 19 2013||Mandate Issued|
Monday's decision rejecting sentence reductions for low-level crack-cocaine offenders may have been unanimous, but @ekownyankah writes that there is far more going on than the ruling's dry textual analysis might indicate. Read his incisive analysis here:
After decades, Congress reduced the racially unjust crack/cocaine disparity... raising amounts required for prison time. Why would Congress have left small time dealers to rot in prison for decades?
My thoughts on SCOTUS's ruling in Terry v. United States:https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/06/unanimous-ruling-on-crack-cocaine-disparity-is-heavy-on-text-light-on-history/
No more SCOTUS opinions for today. There are 18 cases still outstanding from the current term, including disputes over Obamacare, religious rights and voting rights. The next opinion day that we know of is Thursday.
SCOTUS rules 9-0 that people convicted of certain low-level crack-cocaine offenses are not eligible for re-sentencing under the First Step Act, a 2018 law that made some criminal-justice reforms retroactive. Here is the opinion in Terry v. United States. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-5904_i4dk.pdf
SCOTUS sides with the gov in 2 cases about whether certain criminal defendants are entitled to new trials / new plea hearings as a result of the court's 2019 ruling in Rehaif v. United States which narrowed a federal law barring people with felony convictions from possessing guns
In a relatively quiet Monday morning order list, SCOTUS takes up no new cases. But it does invite the federal government to submit a brief on the pending petition that asks the justices to take up a challenge to Harvard's affirmative action policy. https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/061421zor_6j36.pdf
The Supreme Court will release orders at 9:30 a.m. ET followed by opinion(s?) at 10:00.
There are 21 opinions outstanding including Obamacare, LGBTQ+ rights vs. religious liberty, and student speech.
We’ll crank up the live blog at 9:25. Join us!
Announcement of orders and opinions for Monday, June 14 - SCOTUSblog
We will be live blogging on Monday, June 14, as the court releases orders from the June 10 conference and one ...
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.