The U.S. Supreme Court decided six cases today. Only one summary disposition involves criminal law.
Kernan v. Hinojas, No. 15-833, is a Ninth Circuit habeas corpus case involving that court's failure to give deference to the California Supreme Court's summary denial of an original petition in that court. This is an area the high court has gotten into several times, and to some extent it is specific to California's odd system of original habeas petitions in reviewing courts, so I won't go into detail here.
In the "curious incident of non-barking dogs" department, the certiorari petition in Johnson v. Lee, No. 15-789 was on the conference list Thursday but was absent from today's orders list. The online docket now shows it to be on the list for this coming Thursday, the fourth conference for this case.
The case involves the Ninth Circuit's brushing aside of California's rule (similar to those nearly all states and the federal courts) that a claim that could have been made on appeal and wasn't is forfeited. This number of "relists" is a possible indication that the Supreme Court is going to reverse summarily, and it is trying to agree on an opinion. A certain notorious wascally wabbit suggested that course of action would be appropriate in this case.
Kernan v. Hinojas, No. 15-833, is a Ninth Circuit habeas corpus case involving that court's failure to give deference to the California Supreme Court's summary denial of an original petition in that court. This is an area the high court has gotten into several times, and to some extent it is specific to California's odd system of original habeas petitions in reviewing courts, so I won't go into detail here.
In the "curious incident of non-barking dogs" department, the certiorari petition in Johnson v. Lee, No. 15-789 was on the conference list Thursday but was absent from today's orders list. The online docket now shows it to be on the list for this coming Thursday, the fourth conference for this case.
The case involves the Ninth Circuit's brushing aside of California's rule (similar to those nearly all states and the federal courts) that a claim that could have been made on appeal and wasn't is forfeited. This number of "relists" is a possible indication that the Supreme Court is going to reverse summarily, and it is trying to agree on an opinion. A certain notorious wascally wabbit suggested that course of action would be appropriate in this case.
Husky Int'l Electronics v. Ritz,
No. 15-145, is a bankruptcy case, but it involves the definition of
"fraud," so it might have some relevance to white-collar crime cases.
Legal history buffs may enjoy a discussion going back to the Statute of
13 Elizabeth. No, not the current Queen. That's 1571.
Leave a comment