The Supreme Court granted certiorari in five cases today (hat tip: SCOTUSblog). Three are federal habeas cases, described below. The other two are civil -- antitrust vertical price-fixing and the relationship of antitrust and securities regulation.

Roper v. Weaver, No. 06-313, is the state's appeal of an Eighth Circuit decision regarding prosecutor argument in a capital case.

Fry v. Pliler, No. 06-5247, is the prisoner's appeal of an unpublished Ninth Circuit decision (yes, really) finding erroneous exclusion of defense evidence to be harmless error.

Bowles v. Russell, No. 06-5306, is the prisoner's appeal of a Sixth Circuit decision that begins thusly:

This is a case about missed deadlines. At times, they go unnoticed, but sometimes the lapse is fatal. This case presents one of the fatal variety.

Update. The AP has this story on the cert. grants. In the Fry case, the Court limited the grant to Question 3. In a comment on SCOTUSblog, David Porter states that Question 3 is:

If constitutional error in a state trial is not recognized by the judiciary until the case ends up in federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, is the prejudicial impact of the error assessed under the standard set forth in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967), or that enunciated in Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (1993)? Does it matter which harmless error standard is employed? And, if the Brecht standard applies, does the petitioner or the State bear the burden of persuasion on the question of prejudice?

My initial impression is that the answers are Brecht, yes, and the State.