|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|13-517||8th Cir.||Oct 8, 2014||Dec 8, 2014||9-0||Sotomayor||OT 2014|
Holding: Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b), which provides that certain juror testimony about events in the jury room is not admissible “during an inquiry into the validity of a verdict,” precludes a party seeking a new trial from using one juror’s affidavit of what another juror said in deliberations to demonstrate the other juror’s dishonesty during voir dire.
Judgment: Affirmed, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Sotomayor on December 8, 2014.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Oct 22 2013||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 25, 2013)|
|Nov 12 2013||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including December 26, 2013.|
|Dec 19 2013||Brief of respondent Randy D. Shauers in opposition filed.|
|Jan 8 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 24, 2014.|
|Jan 8 2014||Reply of petitioner Gregory P. Warger filed. (Distributed)|
|Jan 21 2014||Record Requested .|
|Jan 30 2014||Record received from the U.S.C.A. 8th Circuit (1 envelope).|
|Feb 3 2014||Record received from the U.S.D.C. South Dakota (1 box).|
|Feb 5 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 21, 2014.|
|Feb 24 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 28, 2014.|
|Mar 3 2014||Petition GRANTED.|
|Mar 28 2014||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioner.|
|Apr 7 2014||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including May 27, 2014.|
|Apr 7 2014||The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including August 6, 2014.|
|May 27 2014||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed.)|
|May 27 2014||Brief of petitioner Gregory P. Warger filed.|
|Jun 3 2014||Brief amici curiae of Professors of Law filed.|
|Jun 3 2014||Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed.|
|Jul 9 2014||Record requested from U.S.C.A. 8th Circuit.|
|Jul 17 2014||Record received from U.S.C.A. 8th Circuit. 1 envelope.|
|Jul 21 2014||SET FOR ARGUMENT Wednesday, October 8, 2014|
|Aug 6 2014||Brief of respondent Randy D. Shauers filed.|
|Aug 11 2014||Brief amici curiae of Law Professors filed.|
|Aug 12 2014||Brief amicus curiae of American Association for Justice filed. (Distributed)|
|Aug 13 2014||Brief amicus curiae of the United States filed.|
|Aug 13 2014||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.|
|Aug 14 2014||CIRCULATED.|
|Sep 5 2014||Reply of petitioner Gregory P. Warger filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 2 2014||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.|
|Oct 8 2014||Argued. For petitioner: Kannon K. Shanmugam, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Sheila L. Birnbaum, New York, N. Y.; and Sarah E. Harrington, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.)|
|Dec 9 2014||Adjudged to be AFFIRMED. Sotomayor, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.|
|Jan 12 2015||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
|Jan 20 2015||Record returned for U.S.C.A. 8th Circuit. (1 Box)|
|Jan 20 2015||Record returned for U.S.D.C. District of South Dakota Western Division. (1 Envelope)|
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.
Four Democrats unveiled legislation today to expand the size of the Supreme Court from nine justices to 13 -- but Democratic leaders in both the House and Senate quickly threw cold water on the proposal.
Here's our report from @jamesromoser:
Bill to enlarge the Supreme Court faces dim prospects in Congress - SCOTUSblog
Four congressional Democrats introduced legislation Thursday to expand the number of seats on the Supreme Court from ...
We're so excited about our April 15 Live Webinar (w/ @HarvardACS & @HarvardFedSoc), Covering the Court, featuring an all-star lineup of panelists @jduffyrice, @katieleebarlow, @whignewtons, & @stevenmazie! _👩⚖️👩⚖️👩⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️_ Register here ➡️ https://harvard.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_k_b_9IPBQ_GV37rpsjF9kw
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.