The Supreme Court announced today that transcripts of oral arguments will be available the same day on the Court's Web site, rather than two weeks later. (Hat tip: SCOTUSblog.) This is great news for those of us who do Supreme Court work from the hinterlands and can't travel to Washington to personally attend arguments. It should also be helpful for reporters who cover the Court's arguments, as knowledgeable people can make responsible comments on the argument after reading the full transcript. Update: Charles Lane has this article in the Washington Post on the announcement.
Also from SCOTUSblog, Court-watcher Tom Goldstein has compiled a list of pending certiorari petitions that he estimates have a "reasonable" chance of being granted. The post is here, and the list itself is here. Because Tom evaluates only paid cases, most defendant petitions in criminal cases (usually in forma pauperis) are not in his sample. Here are the paid criminal and crime-related cases on Tom's list:
Alabama v. Collins, 05-1378, regarding when the rule of Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (1994), that an invocation of the right to counsel for interrogation be clear, kicks in.
Moore v. Maryland, 05-1411, regarding the funding of experts for indigent criminal defendants.
Oklahoma v. Graves, 05-1413, regarding the prejudice requirement for ineffective assistance claims.
Allred v. Sup. Ct. of Calif., 05-1505, regarding whether a trial court can gag-order an attorney for a witness.
Alvarado v. United States, 05-1512, regarding whether federal and state charges arising out of the same conduct are the same offense for the purpose of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. (See Texas v. Cobb, 532 U.S. 162 (2001).)
Barnett v. United States, 05-1515: "Whether there is an 'actual innocence exception' to the one-year limitations provision of 28 U.S.C. § 2255?"
Quarterman (TX) v. Graves, 05-1568, regarding Brady v. Maryland issues.
Acosta v. Texas, 05-1574, on sex devices and the Ninth Amendment.
Schriro (AZ) v. Landrigan, 05-1575, on AEDPA deference, ineffective assistance, and a client who directs his lawyer to present no mitigation.
Gonzales (US) v. Duenas-Alvarez, 05-1629: "Whether a 'theft offense,' which is an 'aggravated felony' under the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)(G), includes aiding and abetting."
Leave a comment