The Supreme Court formally opened its October 2006 term today. There were no arguments, today being the first day of Yom Kippur. Mark Sherman of the Associated Press reports on the first day here. The headline story in the San Francisco Chronicle is Bob Egelko's piece on the "pivotal" term. Not for criminal law, though. The only criminal case mentioned is Cunningham v. California, at the very end.
As expected there were no grants of certiorari for argument in today's orders list. The grants from the "long conference" were announced last Tuesday, and today's list consisted of denials, routine orders, and "vacate and remand in light of ..." orders. Denial of certiorari in the case of Mississippi murderer Bobby Wilcher automatically terminates the stay granted July 11 over the dissent of Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Scalia, and Justice Alito, noted here.
Of the ten criminal and crime-related cases from Tom Goldstein's "reasonable chance" list, previously reported here, two were granted last Tuesday, and the remaining eight were denied today.
Granted last Tuesday:
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."
Denied today:
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.
Leave a comment