|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|15-1503||D.C.||Mar 29, 2017||Jun 22, 2017||6-2||Breyer||OT 2016|
Holding: The withheld evidence is not material under Brady v. Maryland.
Judgment: Affirmed, 6-2, in an opinion by Justice Breyer on June 22, 2017. Justice Kagan filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Ginsburg joined. Justice Gorsuch took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Mar 23 2016||Application (15A988) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from April 13, 2016 to May 13, 2016, submitted to The Chief Justice.|
|Mar 24 2016||Application (15A988) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until May 13, 2016.|
|Apr 27 2016||Application (15A988) to extend further the time from May 13, 2016 to June 10, 2016, submitted to The Chief Justice.|
|Apr 27 2016||Application (15A988) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until June 10, 2016.|
|Jun 10 2016||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due July 14, 2016)|
|Jul 07 2016||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including August 15, 2016.|
|Jul 14 2016||Brief amici curiae of Former Prosecutors filed.|
|Jul 14 2016||Brief amicus curiae of Innocence Network filed.|
|Aug 11 2016||Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including September 14, 2016.|
|Sep 08 2016||Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including October 14, 2016.|
|Oct 14 2016||Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed. VIDED.|
|Nov 01 2016||Reply of petitioners Charles S. Turner, et al. filed.|
|Nov 02 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 22, 2016.|
|Nov 16 2016||Record Requested.|
|Nov 18 2016||Record received from the D.C. Court of Appeals. The records are electronic.|
|Nov 21 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 9, 2016.|
|Dec 14 2016||Petition GRANTED limited to the following question: "Whether the petitioners' convictions must be set aside under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)." The petition in 15-1504 is granted and the cases are consolidated and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument.|
|Jan 24 2017||Joint motion to deem the court of appeals' joint appendix as supplemental volumes to the joint appendix filed with this Court filed. VIDED.|
|Jan 27 2017||Joint appendix filed. VIDED.|
|Jan 27 2017||Brief of petitioners Charles S. Turner, et al. filed.|
|Feb 02 2017||Brief amicus curiae of Wilfredo Lora filed. VIDED.|
|Feb 03 2017||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Wednesday, March 29, 2017. VIDED|
|Feb 03 2017||Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed. VIDED.|
|Feb 03 2017||Brief amicus curiae of Center on Wrongful Convictions of Youth filed. VIDED.|
|Feb 03 2017||Brief amicus curiae of The Innocence Network filed.|
|Feb 03 2017||Brief amici curiae of Texas Public Policy Foundation, et al. filed. VIDED.|
|Feb 03 2017||Brief amici curiae of Former Prosecutors filed. VIDED.|
|Feb 03 2017||Brief amicus curiae of Cato Institute filed. VIDED.|
|Feb 07 2017||Application (16A792) to file a consolidated respondents brief on the merits in excess of word limits, submitted to The Chief Justice. VIDED.|
|Feb 09 2017||Application (16A792) to file a consolidated respondents brief on the merits in excess of word limits granted by The Chief Justice. The consolidated brief on the merits may not exceed 22,500 words. VIDED.|
|Feb 21 2017||Motion to deem the court of appeals' joint appendix as supplemental volumes to the joint appendix filed with this Court GRANTED. VIDED.|
|Feb 22 2017||CIRCULATED.|
|Feb 27 2017||Brief of respondent United States filed. VIDED. (Distributed)|
|Mar 01 2017||Motion for divided argument filed by petitioner Russell L. Overton. VIDED.|
|Mar 17 2017||Motion for divided argument filed by petitioner GRANTED.|
|Mar 17 2017||Reply of petitioners Charles S. Turner, et al. filed. VIDED. (Distributed)|
|Mar 29 2017||Argued. For petitioners in 15-1503: John S. Williams, Washington, D. C. For petitioner in 15-1504: Deanna M. Rice, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Michael R. Dreeben, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. VIDED.|
|Jun 22 2017||Adjudged to be AFFIRMED. Breyer, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy, Thomas, Alito, and Sotomayor, JJ., joined. Kagan, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Ginsburg, J., joined. Gorsuch, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the cases. VIDED.|
|Jun 26 2017||Letter from the United States received.|
|Jul 24 2017||MANDATE ISSUED.|
|Jul 24 2017||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
Today at the court:
A nuts-and-bolts question of civil procedure. After an appeal is decided, do courts have discretion to limit the administrative “costs” that the prevailing party can recover from the losing party?
Argument begins at 10:00 a.m. EDT.
Justices to consider awards of costs of appellate litigation - SCOTUSblog
Wednesday’s argument in City of San Antonio v. Hotels.com brings the justices a basic nuts-and-bolts question of...
In 2019, the Supreme Court limited the scope of a federal law that bans people convicted of felonies from having a gun. Up this morning at the court: back-to-back cases that will decide how many felon-in-possession convictions will need new trials or pleas under that 2019 ruling.
NEW: SCOTUS adds one new case to its docket for next term: Hemphill v. New York, a criminal-procedure case about the interaction between hearsay rules and the right of defendants to confront witnesses against them. Still no action on major petitions involving guns and abortion.
The court will release orders at 9:30 a.m. EDT followed by oral argument in two cases.
First, whether Alaska Native regional and village corporations are “Indian Tribes” for purposes of CARES Act Covid-related relief.
By @StanfordLaw’s Gregory Ablavsky.
Are Alaska Native corporations Indian tribes? A multimillion-dollar question - SCOTUSblog
Are Alaska Native corporations — special corporations that Congress created in 1971 when it resolved Native claims ...
It's official: In the first-ever SCOTUS bracketology tournament, our readers have chosen CHIEF JUSTICE EARL WARREN as the greatest justice in history. The author of Brown v. Board, Loving v. Virginia, and Miranda v. Arizona defeated top-seeded John Marshall in the final round.
We've reached the final round of SCOTUS bracketology, and two illustrious chief justices are facing off for the championship. One wrote Marbury v. Madison. The other wrote Brown v. Board. Our full write-up on both finalists is here: https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/04/the-great-chief-and-the-super-chief-a-final-showdown-in-supreme-court-march-madness/
Cast your vote below!
NEW: The Supreme Court will issue opinion(s?) next Thursday April 22. We’re still waiting on decisions in the ACA case and Fulton v. City of Philadelphia about religious liberty and LGBT rights.
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.