|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.|
Having covered the Supreme Court for six decades, @lylden has seen a lot of changes at 1 First Street. In the latest piece in our series on the post-COVID court, Lyle examines how the court's pandemic operations could spur permanent reform.
How has COVID-19 changed the Supreme Court? And are any of those changes worth keeping? Today we launch a symposium examining those questions.
First up, a piece from @stevenmazie on how to reform oral arguments after the pandemic.
The court after COVID: A recipe for oral argument reform - SCOTUSblog
The Supreme Court has not yet announced whether it will return to normal operations when the 2021-22 term begins ...
NEW shadow-docket case: New York landlords ask SCOTUS for an emergency order to prevent the state from continuing to enforce its COVID-related eviction moratorium. They say the moratorium "runs roughshod" over their constitutional rights.
Filing here: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/21A8-1.pdf
New on the shadow docket: Florida seeks an emergency order blocking CDC policies that substantially limit cruise ships from sailing.
Florida asks #SCOTUS to block, pending appeal, CDC restrictions imposed on cruise industry b/c of COVID-19 pandemic: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/21A5.pdf
NEW: Mississippi formally asks the Supreme Court to overturn its landmark abortion case, Roe v. Wade, in latest court filing. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/184703/20210722161332385_19-1392BriefForPetitioners.pdf
Biden’s SCOTUS reform commission met yesterday and discussed several reform ideas including adding justices and adopting a formal code of ethics.
Term limits emerged as a popular idea. But how to implement it — via statute or constitutional amendment?
Term limits emerge as popular proposal at latest meeting of court-reform commission - SCOTUSblog
The Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court reconvened on Tuesday to hear from a new set of experts on vari...
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.