|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|16-240||Mass.||Apr 19, 2017||Jun 22, 2017||7-2||Kennedy||OT 2016|
Holding: (1) In the context of a public-trial violation during jury selection, when the error is neither preserved nor raised on direct review but is raised later via an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim, the defendant must demonstrate prejudice to secure a new trial; (2) Because Kentel Weaver has not shown a reasonable probability of a different outcome but for counsel's failure to object or that counsel's shortcomings led to a fundamentally unfair trial, he is not entitled to a new trial.
Judgment: Affirmed, 7-2, in an opinion by Justice Kennedy on June 22, 2017. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Gorsuch joined. Justice Alito filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Gorsuch joined. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Kagan joined.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Aug 18 2016||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due September 23, 2016)|
|Sep 6 2016||Waiver of right of respondent Massachusetts to respond filed.|
|Sep 23 2016||Brief amici curiae of Criminal Defense Attorneys of Michigan, et al. filed.|
|Sep 28 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of October 14, 2016.|
|Oct 3 2016||Response Requested . (Due November 2, 2016)|
|Oct 27 2016||Order extending time to file response to petition to and including December 2, 2016.|
|Dec 2 2016||Brief of respondent Massachusetts in opposition filed.|
|Dec 20 2016||Reply of petitioner Kentel Myrone Weaver filed.|
|Dec 21 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 6, 2017.|
|Jan 9 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 13, 2017.|
|Jan 13 2017||Petition GRANTED.|
|Feb 17 2017||SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Wednesday, April 19, 2017.|
|Feb 24 2017||Record requested from the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.|
|Feb 27 2017||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed.)|
|Feb 27 2017||Brief of petitioner Kentel Myrone Weaver filed.|
|Mar 1 2017||Record received from the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. The record is electronic.|
|Mar 3 2017||Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed.|
|Mar 6 2017||Brief amici curiae of Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and Society of Professional Journalists filed.|
|Mar 6 2017||Brief amici curiae of American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Massachusetts filed.|
|Mar 6 2017||Brief amicus curiae of Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed.|
|Mar 6 2017||Brief amici curiae of The Stein Center for Law and Ethics, et al. filed.|
|Mar 22 2017||CIRCULATED.|
|Mar 29 2017||Brief of respondent Massachusetts filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 3 2017||Brief amicus curiae of Criminal Justice Legal Foundation filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 4 2017||Brief amici curiae of Arkansas, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 5 2017||Brief amicus curiae of United States filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 5 2017||Motion of the Acting Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.|
|Apr 5 2017||Letter received from Counsel for Respondents. (Distributed)|
|Apr 10 2017||Reply of petitioner Kentel Myrone Weaver filed. (Distributed)|
|Apr 13 2017||Motion of the Acting Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED. Justice Gorsuch took no part in the consideration or decision of this motion.|
|Apr 19 2017||Argued. For petitioner: Michael B. Kimberly, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Randall E. Ravitz, Assistant Attorney General, Boston, Mass.; and Ann O'Connell, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.)|
|Jun 22 2017||Adjudged to be AFFIRMED. Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Thomas, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Gorsuch, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Gorsuch, J., joined. Alito, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Gorsuch, J., joined. Breyer, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Kagan, J., joined.|
|Jul 24 2017||MANDATE ISSUED.|
|Jul 24 2017||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
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
Senator Markey (D-Ma) is delivering remarks right now in front of the Supreme Court introducing the Judiciary Act of 2021 to expand the court to 13 justices. He’s flanked by Chairman of House Judiciary, Jerry Nadler (D-NY), and Hank Johnson (D-Ga).
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:
Cast your vote below!
The “great chief” and the “super chief”: A final showdown in Supreme Court March Madness - SCOTUSblog
Forget Ali vs. Frazier, Celtics vs. Lakers, or Evert vs. Navratilova. It’s time for Marshall vs. Warren. After...
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.