Wednesday, April 16, 2014

Something brewing?

Papers in three of the cases mentioned in my post of February 27 – Derr v. Maryland, No. 13-637, Galloway v. Mississippi, No. 13-761, and Edwards v. California, No. 13-8618 – have been
distributed for this Friday’s conference.  Derr, incidentally, was Petition of the Day  on SCOTUSBlog on Monday – but Medina v. Arizona was previously Petition of the Day, and that got denied.  (It’s still four Justices, not designation by SCOTUSBlog, required for a grant.)  Two other petitions filed since that post that raise Williams-related issues, Bolus v. Pennsylvania, No. 13-1078, and Marino v. North Carolina, No. 13-1081, are also on for this conference.  (In each of these cases, the state waived its right to respond and the Court has not requested a response.)

Two other Williams-related cases, James v. United States, No. 13-632, and Johnson v. California, No. 13-8705, have been distributed for the following conference, on April 25.

All this activity is worthy of attention; something might happen soon.  But it does not necessarily mean the Court will soon grant one of the petitions.  It doesn’t even necessarily mean that it will soon decide whether to grant one of the petitions.  Turner v. United States, No. 13-127, and Ortiz-Zape v. North Carolina, No. 13-633, have been held for months.  Yohe v. Pennsylvania, No. 13-885, was distributed for the conference of March 28 and is still being held.  And there are other cases in the pipeline.  All the papers are now filed in Brewington v. North Carolina, No. 13-504, but it has not been redistributed.  And in Cooper v. Maryland, No. 13-644, the Court recently requested a response from the state, due May 9.  Also, another petition filed since my post of Feb. 27, in Alger v. California, No. 13-1102, is pending.  I invite readers to tell me about other cases presented to the Court raising Williams-related issues.


6 comments:

Anonymous said...

The Court requested a response in Johnson v California six days after distribution.

Richard D. Friedman said...

I've just learned of a new petition in an autopsy case, Liu v. Washington, No. 13-9561.

paul said...

Derr was relisted.

Richard D. Friedman said...

Sorry, I misspelled the name of the new petitioner -- it's Lui.

The Court today denied the petitions in Bolus and Marino -- no surprise given that it had not asked for responses. But it held the other three petitions mentioned in my main post that were distributed for last Friday's conference (Derr, Galloway, and Edwards). So it's clearly waiting til it has at least one or more of the other cases before it, but I think it's just speculative as to which one(s).

Anonymous said...

Lui involves more than autopsy evidence: "statements of fact from autopsy and toxicology reports, recited at trial by medical examiner who had no personal knowledge of the reports, violated defendant's confrontation rights, but5 Confrontation Clause violation was harmless."

There was also a contention as to results of DNA testing, which the court rejected.
So there could be several points that might interest the court.

State v. Lui (2014) 179 Wash.2d 457 [315 P.3d 493]

John Bishop

yepi online said...

The article you have shared here very awesome. I really like and appreciated your work. I read deeply your article, the points you have mentioned in this article are useful. I must try to follow these points and also share others.