Forget "What did we do before the Internet?" It's enough to ask, "What did we do before SCOTUSblog?"
We either pored over advance sheets or lived in ignorance, that's what. Nowadays, thanks to Akin Gump's comprehensive Supreme Court resource, you can easily know not only what the Supreme Court has recently done in your field, but also what it might do this year.
SCOTUSblog posted today a list of "Petitions To Watch," cases that have "a reasonable chance of being granted" at the Supreme Court's upcoming September 29 conference, linking to the opinion below and all the certioriari briefs. There are important jury cases on the list -- including at least one, Lee v. Louisiana, that will rightly make national news when and if the Supreme Court decides it. The jury cases are:
Docket: 07-1429
Case name: Lucero v. Texas
Issue: Whether, under the Sixth Amendment, a jury foreman may read Bible passages during deliberations to persuade holdout jurors to impose the death penalty.
- Opinion below (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas)
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition
- Petitioner’s reply
Docket:07-1482
Case name: Quarterman v. Mines, Jr.
Issue: Whether, under the federal habeas statute, the jury instructions given at the defendant’s capital murder trial were a clear violation of Penry v. Lynaugh (1989).
- Opinion below (5th Circuit)
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition
Docket: 07-1523
Case name: Lee v. Louisiana
Issue: Whether the Sixth Amendment, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, allows criminal convictions based on non-unanimous jury verdicts.
- Opinion below (Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit)
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition
- Petitioner’s reply
- Brief amicus curiae of Houston Institute for Race and Justice (in support of petitioner)
- Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (in support of petitioner)
- Brief amicus curiae of Louisiana Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (in support of petitioner)
- Brief amicus curiae of American Bar Association (in support of petitioner)
Docket: 08-94
Case name: Pennsylvania v. Mallory, et al.
Issue: Whether a defendant convicted at a bench trial can prove ineffective assistance of counsel by demonstrating that, absent the lawyer’s actions, he would not have waived his right to a jury trial.
- Opinion below (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Eastern District)
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition
- Petitioner’s reply
(Photo by Carlos Úbeda at http://flickr.com/photos/clic/2097785942/; license details there.)
