The Supreme Court today allowed the use of civil rights actions under 42 U.S.C. ยง1983 for postconviction DNA testing. The opinion in Skinner v. Switzer, No. 09-9000, is here (6-3: Ginsburg, Roberts, Scalia, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan; dissent Thomas, Kennedy, Alito).
<< Rule 35 Motion Tolls Habeas Limitation Period | Main | Monday SCOTUS Orders >>
DNA Testing Under Section 1983
Categories:
1 Comment
Leave a comment
Search
Recent Entries
- Crime and Consequences Has Moved
- Abolish the Police?
- News Scan
- Cal. Law on Mandatory Reporting of Kiddie Porn May (or May Not) Be Unconstitutional
- USCA9 Upholds Sentence of Serial Murderer/Rapist Dean Carter
- News Scan
- Robocalls
- Venue at 30,000 Feet
- News Scan
- Supreme Court Takes Excessive Force/Seizure Case
Monthly Archives
- January 2020 (1)
- December 2019 (25)
- November 2019 (35)
- October 2019 (27)
- September 2019 (26)
- August 2019 (22)
- July 2019 (29)
- June 2019 (26)
- May 2019 (36)
- April 2019 (33)
- March 2019 (31)
- February 2019 (21)
- January 2019 (28)
- December 2018 (19)
- November 2018 (17)
- October 2018 (44)
- September 2018 (45)
- August 2018 (34)
- July 2018 (33)
- June 2018 (52)
- May 2018 (34)
- April 2018 (45)
- March 2018 (39)
- February 2018 (56)
- January 2018 (50)
- December 2017 (50)
- November 2017 (43)
- October 2017 (60)
- September 2017 (53)
- August 2017 (46)
- July 2017 (41)
- June 2017 (86)
- May 2017 (87)
- April 2017 (68)
- March 2017 (57)
- February 2017 (66)
- January 2017 (52)
- December 2016 (57)
- November 2016 (79)
- October 2016 (66)
- September 2016 (60)
- August 2016 (72)
- July 2016 (120)
- June 2016 (93)
- May 2016 (80)
- April 2016 (68)
- March 2016 (78)
- February 2016 (80)
- January 2016 (82)
- December 2015 (72)
- November 2015 (63)
- October 2015 (100)
- September 2015 (81)
- August 2015 (76)
- July 2015 (78)
- June 2015 (88)
- May 2015 (110)
- April 2015 (95)
- March 2015 (92)
- February 2015 (65)
- January 2015 (78)
- December 2014 (126)
- November 2014 (72)
- October 2014 (95)
- September 2014 (85)
- August 2014 (92)
- July 2014 (81)
- June 2014 (73)
- May 2014 (104)
- April 2014 (96)
- March 2014 (62)
- February 2014 (70)
- January 2014 (66)
- December 2013 (57)
- November 2013 (68)
- October 2013 (67)
- September 2013 (57)
- August 2013 (90)
- July 2013 (54)
- June 2013 (65)
- May 2013 (103)
- April 2013 (135)
- March 2013 (84)
- February 2013 (79)
- January 2013 (81)
- December 2012 (96)
- November 2012 (65)
- October 2012 (110)
- September 2012 (74)
- August 2012 (95)
- July 2012 (70)
- June 2012 (80)
- May 2012 (86)
- April 2012 (84)
- March 2012 (78)
- February 2012 (58)
- January 2012 (63)
- December 2011 (42)
- November 2011 (73)
- October 2011 (108)
- September 2011 (98)
- August 2011 (95)
- July 2011 (84)
- June 2011 (90)
- May 2011 (125)
- April 2011 (90)
- March 2011 (123)
- February 2011 (96)
- January 2011 (102)
- December 2010 (106)
- November 2010 (88)
- October 2010 (102)
- September 2010 (107)
- August 2010 (83)
- July 2010 (78)
- June 2010 (96)
- May 2010 (102)
- April 2010 (108)
- March 2010 (105)
- February 2010 (100)
- January 2010 (113)
- December 2009 (58)
- November 2009 (72)
- October 2009 (89)
- September 2009 (85)
- August 2009 (62)
- July 2009 (61)
- June 2009 (72)
- May 2009 (65)
- April 2009 (60)
- March 2009 (90)
- February 2009 (56)
- January 2009 (57)
- December 2008 (71)
- November 2008 (62)
- October 2008 (74)
- September 2008 (52)
- August 2008 (33)
- July 2008 (56)
- June 2008 (71)
- May 2008 (54)
- April 2008 (83)
- March 2008 (51)
- February 2008 (40)
- January 2008 (40)
- December 2007 (34)
- November 2007 (41)
- October 2007 (45)
- September 2007 (47)
- August 2007 (42)
- July 2007 (49)
- June 2007 (61)
- May 2007 (55)
- April 2007 (55)
- March 2007 (55)
- February 2007 (57)
- January 2007 (51)
- December 2006 (30)
- November 2006 (46)
- October 2006 (52)
- September 2006 (30)
- August 2006 (44)
- July 2006 (34)
- June 2006 (26)
- May 2006 (14)
- April 2006 (1)
About C & C Blog
About CJLF
Issues
- Academia (96)
- Appeal (3)
- Blog (37)
- Cases (130)
- Civil Suits (75)
- Clemency (49)
- Collateral Consequences (9)
- Congress (3)
- Constitution (103)
- Counsel (173)
- Criminal Procedure (194)
- Death Penalty (1918)
- Drugs (223)
- Equal Protection (11)
- Evidence (246)
- Federal Courts (133)
- Federalism (45)
- Firearms (49)
- First Amendment (105)
- Forfeiture (7)
- General (989)
- Habeas Corpus (469)
- Humor (129)
- Immigration (92)
- International (171)
- Journalism (33)
- Judicial Selection (165)
- Judiciary (14)
- Jury Trial (30)
- Juveniles (119)
- Mental State (290)
- Military (3)
- National Security (20)
- News Scan (2434)
- Notorious Cases (493)
- Off Topic (51)
- Policing (216)
- Policy (7)
- Politics (688)
- Polls (80)
- Prisons (299)
- Probation and Parole (72)
- Public Order (73)
- Rehabilitation (34)
- Schools (6)
- Search and Seizure (211)
- Self-defense (14)
- Sentencing (837)
- Sex offenses (60)
- Social Factors (177)
- State Courts (77)
- Studies (360)
- Stupid Crooks (7)
- Terrorism (301)
- U.S. Supreme Court (1692)
- USDoJ (102)
- Use of Force (45)
- Victims' Rights (57)
Links
Blogs
SCOTUSblog
Bench Memos (NRO)
The Volokh Conspiracy
Sentencing Law & Policy
Homicide Survivors
FedSoc Blog
The Cert Pool
Bench Memos (NRO)
The Volokh Conspiracy
Sentencing Law & Policy
Homicide Survivors
FedSoc Blog
The Cert Pool
Ugh. Another last-minute, strategically filed claim delays justice. "Death is different." That's the explanation for this case, and Part III was used to get Scalia and Roberts on board.