The current argument session of the U.S. Supreme Court is pretty thin on criminal law. There is one federal case involving some narrow issues, Musacchio v. United States, No. 14-1095, argued Monday.
Supreme Court decisions in civil cases may affect criminal and habeas cases, though. That is particularly true of habeas, which is technically a civil case. Yesterday the high court heard argument in a case involving equitable tolling of statutes of limitation, and the main precedent being discussed was Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (2010), a capital habeas case (and one of my losses).
Habeas practitioners may want to keep an eye out for the decision in Menominee Tribe of Wis. v. United States, No. 14-510. Perhaps it will shed some light on "extraordinary circumstances." SCOTUSblog's case page is here. Ronald Mann has this report on the oral argument and thinks it looks grim for the tribe (and, therefore, good for the government).
Supreme Court decisions in civil cases may affect criminal and habeas cases, though. That is particularly true of habeas, which is technically a civil case. Yesterday the high court heard argument in a case involving equitable tolling of statutes of limitation, and the main precedent being discussed was Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (2010), a capital habeas case (and one of my losses).
Habeas practitioners may want to keep an eye out for the decision in Menominee Tribe of Wis. v. United States, No. 14-510. Perhaps it will shed some light on "extraordinary circumstances." SCOTUSblog's case page is here. Ronald Mann has this report on the oral argument and thinks it looks grim for the tribe (and, therefore, good for the government).
Leave a comment