Johnson v. Alabama
Petition granted, judgment vacated, and petition remanded to the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals for further consideration in light of the position asserted by the respondent in its brief filed on May 10, 2017 on June 26, 2017.
| Docket No. | Argument | Opinion | Vote | Author | Term |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16-7835 | TBD | TBD | TBD | TBD | TBD |
Issue: Whether a state court can enforce a rule that Brady v. Maryland does not apply to impeachment evidence when the Supreme Court has held that Brady does apply to impeachment evidence.
| Date | Proceedings and Orders |
|---|---|
| 02/02/2017 | Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due March 10, 2017) |
| 03/03/2017 | Order extending time to file response to petition to and including April 10, 2017. |
| 03/10/2017 | Brief amicus curiae of Death Row Exoneree 138 Anthony Graves filed. |
| 04/07/2017 | Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including May 10, 2017. |
| 05/10/2017 | Brief of respondent Alabama in opposition filed. |
| 05/19/2017 | Reply of petitioner Toforest Onesha Johnson filed. |
| 05/24/2017 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 8, 2017. |
| 06/12/2017 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 15, 2017. |
| 06/19/2017 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 22, 2017. |
| 06/26/2017 | Motion to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for a writ of certiorari GRANTED. Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED for further consideration in light of the position asserted by the respondent in its brief filed on May 10, 2017. The CHIEF JUSTICE, with whom JUSTICE THOMAS, JUSTICE ALITO, and JUSTICE GORSUCH join, dissenting: The Court vacates the judgment below in light of the position asserted by the respondent in its brief. That position is that the Court should vacate a state court judgment for further consideration in light of Ex parte Beckworth, 190 So. 3d 571 (Ala. 2013). Beckworth is a state court decision that turns entirely on state procedural law. It was expressly called to the attention of the state courts, which declined to upset the decision below in light of it. Reply to Pet. for Cert. 2, n. 1. The question presented concerns state collateral review |
| 07/28/2017 | MANDATE ISSUED. |
| 07/28/2017 | JUDGMENT ISSUED. |