ÿþ<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML> <HEAD> <TITLE>Recent Cert Grants</TITLE> <META name="GENERATOR" content="Microsoft FrontPage 4.0"> <META name="ProgId" content="FrontPage.Editor.Document"> <BASE target="_self"> <META name="Microsoft Border" content="none"> <META http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <META http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css"> <!--navigation start--> <!--navigation end --> </HEAD> <BODY bgcolor="#ffffff"> <table width="650"><tr><td width="5%"></td> <td width="95%"><BLOCKQUOTE> <hr> <P align="center"><FONT face="Arial" size="4" color="#000000"><a name="top">Several </a> Important Cases are Pending!</FONT> </P> <P align="center"><FONT face="Arial" size="2" color="#000000">Last Updated: <!-- #BeginDate format:fcAm1 -->Friday, October 14, 2011<!-- #EndDate --> </FONT> </P> <HR> <P>&nbsp;</P> <P> <A name="HCI"> <FONT face=Arial><STRONG> The Supreme Court has granted certiorari in the following cases involving habeas corpus issues: </STRONG></FONT> </A> </P> <P>&nbsp;</P> <!--- *************************************** ---> <P><FONT face=Arial size=2> <STRONG><U>Cavazos v. Williams</U>, 11-465 (cert granted January 13, 2012)<br> (case below: 646 F.3d 626 (9th Cir.))</font></p> <P><FONT face=Arial size=2>Questions presented:</FONT></P></STRONG> <DIR> <P> <FONT face=Arial size=2> Whether a habeas petitioner's claim has been "adjudicated on the merits" for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d) where the state court denied relief in an explained decision but did not expressly acknowledge a federal-law basis for the claim. </FONT></P> </DIR> <P> <FONT face=Arial size=2> <a href="http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Williams-Cert-Petition-11-465.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view the warden's certiorari petition. (The Supreme Court granted cert limited to the first question in the petition.) <a href="http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/11-465-BIO.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view Williams' Brief in Opposition. </FONT></P> <!--- *************************************** ---> <P><FONT face=Arial size=2> <STRONG><U>Wood v. Milyard</U>, 10-9995 (cert. granted Sept. 27, 2011)<br> <a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12839813996569676862&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr" target="new">(case below: (10th Cir.))</a></font></p> <P><FONT face=Arial size=2>Questions presented:</FONT></P></STRONG> <DIR> <P> <FONT face=Arial size=2> (1) Does an appellate court have the authority to raise sua sponte a 28 U.S.C. §2244(d) statute of limitations defense? (2) Does the State's declaration before the district court that it "will not challengem but [is] not conceding, the timeliness of Wood's habeas petition," amount to a deliberate waiver of any statute of limitations defense the State may have had? </FONT></P> </DIR> <P> <FONT face=Arial size=2> <a href="http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/supreme_court_preview/briefs/10-9995_pet.authcheckdam.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view Wood's merits brief. Argument will be heard on February 27, 2012. </FONT> </P> <!--- *************************************** ---> <P><FONT face=Arial size=2> <STRONG><U>Martel v. Clair</U>, 10-1265 (cert granted June 27, 2011)<br> (case below: unpublished 9th Cir.)</font></p> <P><FONT face=Arial size=2>Questions presented:</FONT></P></STRONG> <DIR> <P> <FONT face=Arial size=2> At the end of ten years of capital federal habeas corpus proceedings in the district court, respondent suddenly complained about and sought replacement of his court-appointed public defender with a new appointed lawyer. The district court refused, explaining that "it appears Petitioner s counsel is doing a proper job" and that "[n]o conflict of interest or inadequacy of counsel is shown," and thereupon issued its ruling denying habeas corpus relief. On appeal, however, the Ninth Circuit appointed a replacement lawyer, vacated the judgment, and remanded for further proceedings to allow the new lawyer to raise additional claims for relief. The Ninth Circuit explained that no showing of ineffectiveness of counsel was required, for it was enough that Clair had expressed "dissatisfaction" and had alleged that the public defender was failing to pursue potentially important evidence. </FONT></P> <P> <FONT face=Arial size=2> The Question Presented is:<br> Whether a condemned state prisoner in federal habeas corpus proceedings is entitled to replace his court-appointed counsel with another court-appointed lawyer just because he expresses dissatisfaction and alleges that his counsel was failing to pursue potentially important evidence. </FONT></P> </DIR> <P> <FONT face=Arial size=2> <a href="http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/previewbriefs/Other_Brief_Updates/10-1265_petitioner.authcheckdam.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view the warden's merits brief. <a href="http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/previewbriefs/Other_Brief_Updates/10-1265_petitioneramcu26states.authcheckdam.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view the amicus brief of Florida, Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Guam, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington and Wyoming in support of the warden. <a href="http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/supreme_court_preview/briefs/10-1265_respondent.authcheckdam.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view Clair's merits brief. <a href="http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/supreme_court_preview/briefs/10-1265_petitionerreply.authcheckdam.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view the warden's reply brief. <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/10-1265.pdf" target="new">Argument</a> was heard on December 6, 2011. </FONT> </P> <!--- *************************************** ---> <P><FONT face=Arial size=2> <STRONG><U>Martinez v. Ryan</U>, 10-1001 (cert. granted June 6, 2011)<br> <a href="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/09/27/09-15170.pdf" target="new">(case below: 623 F.3d 781 (9th Cir.))</a></font></p> <P><FONT face=Arial size=2>Questions presented:</FONT></P></STRONG> <DIR> <P> <FONT face=Arial size=2> Whether a defendant in a state criminal case who is prohibited by state law from raising on direct appeal any claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, but who has a state-law right to raise such a claim in a first post-conviction proceeding, has a federal constitutional right to effective assistance of first post-conviction counsel specifically with respect to his ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim. </FONT></P> </DIR> <P> <FONT face=Arial size=2> <a href="http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/previewbriefs/Other_Brief_Updates/10-1001_petitioner.authcheckdam.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view Martinez's merits brief. <a href="http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/previewbriefs/Other_Brief_Updates/10-1001_petitioneramcuaba.authcheckdam.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view the amicus brief of the American Bar Association in support of Martinez. <a href="http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/previewbriefs/Other_Brief_Updates/10-1001_petitioneramcufmrstatesupremectjustices.authcheckdam.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view the amicus brief of Former State Supreme Court Justices in support of Martinez. <a href="http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/previewbriefs/Other_Brief_Updates/10-1001_petitioneramcuinnocencenetw.authcheckdam.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view the amicus brief of the Innocence Network in support of Martinez. <a href="http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/previewbriefs/Other_Brief_Updates/10-1001_respondent.authcheckdam.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view Ryan's merits brief. <a href="http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/previewbriefs/Other_Brief_Updates/10-1001_respondent_amcu_cjlf.authcheckdam.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view the amicus brief of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation in support of Ryan. <a href="http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/previewbriefs/Other_Brief_Updates/10-1001_respondentamcu24states.authcheckdam.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view the amicus brief of Wisconsin, Alabama, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Wyoming in support of Ryan. <a href="http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/previewbriefs/Other_Brief_Updates/10-1001_respondent_amcu_unitedstates.authcheckdam.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view the amicus brief of the United States in support of Ryan. <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/10-1001.pdf" target="new">Argument</a> was heard on October 4, 2011. <!--- <a href="http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Mart.-USSCPetition020211.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view Martinez's certiorari petition. ---> </FONT> </P> <!--- *************************************** ---> <!--- <P><FONT face=Arial size=2> <STRONG><U>Greene v. Fisher</U>, 10-637 (cert. granted April 4, 2011)<br> (decision below: 606 F.3d 85 (3rd. Cir.))</font></p> <P><FONT face=Arial size=2>Questions presented:</FONT></P></STRONG> <DIR> <P> <FONT face=Arial size=2> For purposes of adjudicating a state prisoner's petition for federal habeas relief, what is the temporal cutoff for whether a decision from this Court qualifies as "clearly established Federal law" under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d), as amended by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996? </FONT></P> </DIR> <P> <FONT face=Arial size=2> <a href="http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/previewbriefs/Other_Brief_Updates/10-637_petitioner.authcheckdam.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view Greene's merits brief. <a href="http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/previewbriefs/Other_Brief_Updates/10-637_petitioner_amcu_nacdl.authcheckdam.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view the amicus brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the National Association of Federal Defenders in support of Greene. <a href="http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/previewbriefs/Other_Brief_Updates/10-637_respendent_fisher.authcheckdam.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view Fisher's merits brief. <a href="http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/previewbriefs/Other_Brief_Updates/10-637_respondent_amcu_texas.authcheckdam.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view the amicus brief of Texas, Delaware, Florida, Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, Montana, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming in support of Fisher. <a href="http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/previewbriefs/Other_Brief_Updates/10-637_petitionerreply.authcheckdam.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view Greene's reply brief. <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/10-637.pdf" target="new">Argument</a> was heard on October 11, 2011. <a href="http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/04-01-Greene-cert-petition.pdf" target=new>Click here</a> to view Greene's petition for writ of certiorari. ---> </FONT> </P> <!--- *************************************** ---> <P><FONT face=Arial size=2> <STRONG><U>Howes v. Fields</U>, 10-680 (cert. granted Jan. 24, 2011)<br> <a href="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/10a0254p-06.pdf" target="new">(case below: 617 F.3d 813 (6th Cir.))</a></font></p> <P><FONT face=Arial size=2>Questions presented:</FONT></P></STRONG> <DIR> <P> <FONT face=Arial size=2> Whether this Court's clearly established precedent under 28 U.S.C. §2254 holds that a prisoner is always "in custody" for purposes of Miranda any time that prisoner is isolated from the general prison population and questioned about conduct occurring outside the prison regardless of the surrounding circumstances. </FONT></P> </DIR> <P> <FONT face=Arial size=2> <a href="http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/previewbriefs/Other_Brief_Updates/10-680_petitioner.authcheckdam.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view Howes' merits brief. <a href="http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/previewbriefs/Other_Brief_Updates/10-680_petitioneramcu36states.authcheckdam.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view the amicus brief of Ohio, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming in support of Howes. <a href="http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/previewbriefs/Other_Brief_Updates/10-680_petitioner_unitedstates.authcheckdam.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view the amicus brief of the United States in support of Howes. <a href="http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/previewbriefs/Other_Brief_Updates/10-680_respondent_randellfields.authcheckdam.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view Fields' merits brief. <a href="http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/previewbriefs/Other_Brief_Updates/10-680_respondentamcudonovansimpson.authcheckdam.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view the amicus brief of Donovan E. Simpson in support of Fields. <a href="http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/previewbriefs/Other_Brief_Updates/10-680_petitioner_replybrief.authcheckdam.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view Howes' reply brief. <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/10-680.pdf" target="new">Argument</a> was heard on October 4, 2011. </P> <!--- *************************************** ---> <!--- <P><FONT face=Arial size=2> <STRONG><U>Walker v. Martin</U>, 09-996 (cert granted 06/21/10)<br> <a href="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2009/11/20/08-15752.pdf" target="new">(case below: 08-15752 (9th Cir.) (unpublished))</a></font></p> <P><FONT face=Arial size=2>Questions presented:</STRONG> </FONT></P> <DIR> <P> <FONT face=Arial size=2> Under state law in California, a prisoner may be barred from collaterally attacking his conviction when the prisoner "substantially delayed" filing his habeas petition. In federal habeas corpus proceedings, is such a state law "inadequate" to support a procedural bar because (1) the federal court believes that the rule is vague and (2) that state failed to prove that its courts "consistently" exercised their discretion when applying the rule in other cases? </FONT> </P> </DIR> <P> <FONT face=Arial size=2> <a href="../../../../pdf_library/AG merits brief.pdf" target=new>Click here</a> to view the warden's merits brief. <a href="http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/09-10/09-996_PetitionerAmCuCJLF.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view the amicus brief by the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation in support of Walker. <a href="http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/09-10/09-996_Respondent.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view Martin's merits brief. <a href="http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/09-10/09-996_RespondentAmCuFedCourtsScholars.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view the amicus brief of Federal Courts Scholars in support of Martin. <a href="http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/09-10/09-996_RespondentAmCuFederalDefendersCA.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view the amicus brief of Federal Defenders for the Central, Eastern, Northern Districts of California and Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. in support of Martin. <a href="http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/09-10/09-996_RespondentAmCuHabeasCorpusResCtr.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> amicus brief of Habeas Corpus Resource Center in support of Martin. <a href="http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/09-10/09-996_RespondentAmCuCoryMaples.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view the amicus brief of Corey R. Maples in support of Martin. Argument was heard on November 29, 2010. <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/09-996.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view the argument transcript. <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio_detail.aspx?argument=09-996" target="new">Click here</a> to listen to the argument. </FONT> </P> ---> <!--- *************************************** ---> <P><FONT face=Arial size=2> <STRONG><U>Lafler v. Cooper</U>, 10-209 (granted Jan. 7, 2011)<br> <a href="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/10a0281n-06.pdf" target="new">(case below: unpublished 6th Cir.</a>) </font></p> <P><FONT face=Arial size=2>Questions presented:</STRONG> </FONT></P> <DIR> <P> <FONT face=Arial size=2> Anthony Cooper faced assault with intent to murder charges. His counsel advised him to reject a plea offer based on a misunderstanding of Michigan law. Cooper rejected the offer, and he was convicted as charged. Cooper does not assert that any error occurred at trial. </P> <P> <FONT face=Arial size=2> On habeas review, the Sixth Circuit found that because there is a reasonable probability that Cooper would have accepted the plea offer had he been adequately advised, his Sixth Amendment rights were violated. The writ was conditioned on Michigan reoffering the plea agreement. The question presented is: </P> <P> <FONT face=Arial size=2> Is a state habeas petitioner entitled to relief where his counsel deficiently advises him to reject a favorable plea bargain but the defendant is later convicted and sentenced pursuant to a fair trial? </P> </DIR> <P> <FONT face=Arial size=2> <a href="http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/previewbriefs/Other_Brief_Updates/10-209_petitioner.authcheckdam.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view Lafler's merit's brief. <a href="http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/preview/publiced_preview_briefs_pdfs_2010_2011_10_209_PetitionerAmCuWayneCountyMI.authcheckdam.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view the amicus brief of Wayne County, Michigan in support of Lafler. <a href="http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/previewbriefs/Other_Brief_Updates/10-209_petitioneramcuusa.authcheckdam.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view the amicus brief of the United States in support of Lafler. <a href="http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/previewbriefs/Other_Brief_Updates/10-209_petitioner_crimejustice.authcheckdam.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view the amicus brief of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation and the National District Attorneys Association in support of Lafler. <a href="http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/previewbriefs/Other_Brief_Updates/10-209_petitioner_amcu_connecticutothers.authcheckdam.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view the amicus brief of Connecticut, Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming in support of Lafler. <a href="http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/previewbriefs/Other_Brief_Updates/10-209_respondent.authcheckdam.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view Cooper's merits brief. <a href="http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/previewbriefs/Other_Brief_Updates/10-209_respondentamcuaba.authcheckdam.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view the amicus brief of the American Bar Association in support of Cooper. <a href="http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/previewbriefs/Other_Brief_Updates/10-209_respondent_amcu_centeradmincriminallaw.authcheckdam.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view the amicus brief of the Center for the Administration of Criminal Law, New York University School of Law in support of Cooper. <a href="http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/previewbriefs/Other_Brief_Updates/10-209_respondentamcuconstutionproj.authcheckdam.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view the amicus brief of the Constitution Project in support of Cooper. <a href="http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/previewbriefs/Other_Brief_Updates/10-209_respondentamcu3defenseorgs.authcheckdam.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view the amicus brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the Connecticut Criminal Defense Lawyers Association, and the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation in support of Cooper. <a href="http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/previewbriefs/Other_Brief_Updates/10-209_petitionerreply.authcheckdam.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view Lafler's reply brief. <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/10-209.pdf" target="new">Argument</a> was heard on October 31, 2011. </FONT> </P> <!--- *************************************** ---> <!--- <P><FONT face=Arial size=2> <STRONG><U>Harrington v. Richter</U>, 09-587 (cert. granted Feb. 22, 2010)<br> <a href="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/08/10/06-15614.pdf" target="new">(case below: 578 F.3d 944 (9th Cir.) (en banc) </a> </font></p> <P><FONT face=Arial size=2>Questions presented:</STRONG> </FONT></P> <DIR> <P> <FONT face=Arial size=2> (1) In granting habeas corpus relief to a state prisoner, did the Ninth Ciruit deny the state court judgment the deference mandated by 28 U.S.C. section 2254(d) and impermissibly enlarge the Sixth Amendment right to effective counsel by elevating the value of expert-opinion testimony in a manner that would virtually always require defense counsel to produce such testimony rather than allowing him to rely instead on cross-examination or other methods designed to create reasonable doubt about the defendant's guilt; and (2) Does AEDPA deference apply to a state court's summary disposition of a claim, including a claim under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). </FONT> </P> </DIR> <P> <FONT face=Arial size=2> The second question was added by the Court. <a href="http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/09-10/09-587_Petitionernew.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view the warden's merits brief. <a href="http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/09-10/09-587_Respondent.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view Richter's merits brief. <a href="http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/09-10/09-587_PetitionerAmCu33States.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view the amicus brief of Texas, Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakaota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming in support of the warden. <a href="http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/09-10/09-587_PetitionerAmCuCJLF.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view the amicus brief of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation in support of the warden. <a href="http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/09-10/09-587_RespondentAmCuNACDL.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view the amicus brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in support of Richter. <a href="http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/09-10/09-587_RespondentAmCuCACJandTheAcademy.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view the amicus brief of California Attorneys for Criminal Justice and the California Academy of Appellate Lawyers in support of Richter. <a href="http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/09-10/09-587_RespondentAmCuLawProfsandLegScholars.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view the amicus brief of Law Professors and Legal Scholars in support of Richter. <a href="http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/09-10/09-587_PetitionerReply.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view the warden's reply brief. <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/09-587.pdf" target="new">Argument</a> was heard on October 12, 2010. </FONT> </P> ---> <!--- *************************************** ---> <P>&nbsp;</P> <P><a name="CI"> <STRONG><FONT face=Arial size=3> The Supreme Court has granted certiorari in the following cases which involve constitutional issues of interest to capital litigators: </FONT></STRONG> </a></P> <P>&nbsp;</P> <!--- *************************************** ---> <P><FONT face=Arial size=2> <STRONG><U>Vasquez v. United States</U>, 11-199 (cert. granted Nov. 28, 2011)<br> (case below: 635 F.3d 889 (7th Cir.)) </font></p> <P><FONT face=Arial size=2>Questions presented:</STRONG> </FONT></P> <DIR> <P> <FONT face=Arial size=2> (1) Did the Seventh Circuit violate this Court's precedent on harmless error when it focused its harmless error analysis solely on the weight of the untainted evidence without considering the potential effect of the error (the erroneous admission of trial counsel's statements that his client would lose the case and should plead guilty for the truth) on this jury at all? (2) Did the Seventh Circuit violate Mr. Vasquez's Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial by determining that Mr. Vasquez should have been convicted without considering the effects of the district court's error on the jury that heard the case? </P> </DIR> <P> <FONT face=Arial size=2> <a href="http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Vasquez.Cert_.Final_.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view Vasquez's certiorari petition. <a href="http://www.justice.gov/osg/briefs/2011/0responses/2011-0199.resp.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view the United States' Brief in Opposition. <a href="http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Vaquez.Reply_.Full_.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view Vasquez's reply. Argument will be heard on March 21, 2012. </FONT> </P> <!--- *************************************** ---> <P><FONT face=Arial size=2> <STRONG><U>Miller v. Alabama</U>, 10-9646 (cert. granted Nov. 7, 2011)<br> <a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=evan+miller+v+state+of+alabama&hl=en&as_sdt=4,1&case=4485403190984287334&scilh=0" target="new">(case below: Ala. Crim. App.)</a> </font></p> <P><FONT face=Arial size=2>Questions presented:</STRONG> </FONT></P> <DIR> <P> <FONT face=Arial size=2> Evan Miller was sentenced to a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without parole for a homicide offense committed when he was only fourteen years old. Evan is one of only seventy-three fourteen-year-olds nationwide who are serving such sentences. The questions presented are: (1) Does imposition of a life-without-parole sentence on a fourteen-year-old child convicted of homicide violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments' prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments, when the extreme rarity of such sentences in practice reflects a national consensus regarding the reduced criminal culpability of young children? (2) Does imposition of a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without parole on a fourteen-year-old convicted of homicide -- a sentence imposed pursuant to a statutory scheme that categorically precludes consideration of the offender's young age or any other mitigating circumstances -- violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments' prohibitions on cruel and unusual punishments? </P> </DIR> <P> <FONT face=Arial size=2> <a href="http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Miller-USSC-cert-petition-3-21-11-FINAL.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view Miller's certiorari petition. <a href="http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Miller-USSC-States-BIO-cert-6-1-11.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view Alabama's Brief in Opposition. <a href="http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Miller-USSC-reply-to-BIO-6-9-11-FINAL.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view Miller's reply. Argument will be heard on March 20, 2012. </FONT> </P> <!--- *************************************** ---> <P><FONT face=Arial size=2> <STRONG><U>Jackson v. Hobbs</U>, 10-9647 (cert. granted Nov. 7, 2011)<br> <a href="http://eji.org/eji/files/Jackson%20ASC%20opinion%202-10-11.pdf" target="new"> (case below: 2011 Ark. 49 (Ark.S.Ct.)</a> </font></p> <P><FONT face=Arial size=2>Questions presented:</STRONG> </FONT></P> <DIR> <P> <FONT face=Arial size=2> Kuntrell Jackson has been sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for an offense committed when he was fourteen years old. He is one of only 73 fourteen-year-olds serving such a sentence throughout the United States. His case presents an ideal vehicle for this Court's consideration of the question left undecided by Graham v. Florida and Sullivan v. Florida -- whether the Eighth Amendment forbids a life-without-parole sentence for a young juvenile convicted of a homicide offense -- because, while Kuntrell's offense did involve a homicide, he was convicted only on a theory that he was an accomplice to a robbery in which an older boy shot a shop attendant. Kuntrell himself did not commit the killing and was not shown to have had any intent or awareness that the attendant would be shot. The robbery "plan," such as it was, was spur-of-the moment, formed just before the robbery, while Kuntrell, his cousin, and another older teen were walking together through a housing project. Because Arkansas law made a life-without-parole sentence mandatory upon Kuntrell's homicide conviction, neither his age nor any of these other mitigating circumstances could be considered by his sentencer. Under these circumstances, the questions presented are: (1) Does imposition of a life-without-parole sentence on a fourteen-year-old child convicted of homicide violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments' prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments, when the extreme rarity of such sentences in practice reflects a national consensus regarding the reduced criminal culpability of young children? (2) Does such a sentence violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments when it is imposed upon a fourteen-year-old who did not personally kill the homicide victim, did not personally engage in any act of physical violence toward the victim, and was not shown even to have anticipated, let alone intended, that anyone be killed? (3) Does such a sentence violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments when it is imposed upon a fourteen-year-old as a result of a mandatory sentencing scheme that categorically precludes consideration of the offender's young age or any other mitigating circumstance? </P> </DIR> <P> <FONT face=Arial size=2> <a href="http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Jackson-USSC-cert-petition-FINAL-3-21-11.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view Jackson's certiorari petition. <a href="http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Jackson-USSC-States-BIO-6-1-11.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view Arkansas' Brief in Opposition. <a href="http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Jackson-USSC-reply-to-BIO-6-13-11-FINAL.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view Jackson's reply. Argument will be heard on March 20, 2012. </FONT> </P> <!--- *************************************** ---> <P><FONT face=Arial size=2> <STRONG><U>Blueford v, Arkansas</U>, 10-1320 (cert. granted Oct. 11, 2011)<br> <a href="http://opinions.aoc.arkansas.gov/WebLink8/ElectronicFile.aspx?docid=54184&&dbid=0" target="new">(case below: 2011 Ark. 8 (Ark.))</a> </font></p> <P><FONT face=Arial size=2>Questions presented:</STRONG> </FONT></P> <DIR> <P> <FONT face=Arial size=2> Whether, if a jury deadlocks on a lesser-included offense, the Double Jeopardy Clause bars re-prosecution of a greater offense after a jury announces that it has voted against guilt on the greater offense. </P> </DIR> <P> <FONT face=Arial size=2> <a href="http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/supreme_court_preview/briefs/10-1320_petitioner.authcheckdam.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view Blueford's merits brief. <a href="http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/supreme_court_preview/briefs/10-1320_petitioner_amcu_constituionalcenter.authcheckdam.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view the amicus brief of Constitutional Accountability Center in support of Blueford. <a href="http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/supreme_court_preview/briefs/10-1320_petitioner_amcu_criminallawprofessors.authcheckdam.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view the amicus brief of Criminal Law Professors in support of Blueford. <a href="http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/supreme_court_preview/briefs/10-1320_petitioneramcunacdl.authcheckdam.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view the amicus brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in support of Blueford. <a href="http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/supreme_court_preview/briefs/10-1320_resp.authcheckdam.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view Arkansas' merits brief. <a href="http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/supreme_court_preview/briefs/10-1320_respondentamcu23states.authcheckdam.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view the amicus brief of Michigan, Alabama, Territory of American Samoa, Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Wisconsin and Wyoming in support of Arkansas. Argument will be heard on February 22, 2012. </FONT> </P> <!--- *************************************** ---> <P><FONT face=Arial size=2> <STRONG><U>Williams v. Illinois</U>, 10-8505 (cert. granted June 28, 2011)<br> <a href="http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Williams-opinon-S.-Ct.-of-IL.pdf" target="new">(case below: 939 N.E.2d 268 (Ill.))</a> </font></p> <P><FONT face=Arial size=2>Questions presented:</STRONG> </FONT></P> <DIR> <P> <FONT face=Arial size=2> Whether a state rule of evidence allowing an expert witness to testify about the results of DNA testing performed by non-testifying analysts, where the defendant has no opportunity to confront the actual analysts, violates the Confrontation Clause. </P> </DIR> <P> <FONT face=Arial size=2> <a href="http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/previewbriefs/Other_Brief_Updates/10-8505_petitioner.authcheckdam.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view Williams' merits brief. <a href="http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/previewbriefs/Other_Brief_Updates/10-8505_petitioneramcucpda-cdla-andmaba.authcheckdam.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view the amicus brief of California Public Defenders Association, California DUI Lawyers Association and The Mexican American Bar Association (of Los Angeles County) in support of Williams. <a href="http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/previewbriefs/Other_Brief_Updates/10-8505_petitioneramcuinnocencenetw.authcheckdam.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view the amicus brief of the Innocence Network in support of Williams. <a href="http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/previewbriefs/Other_Brief_Updates/10-8505_petitioneramcupdsandnacdl.authcheckdam.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view the amicus brief of Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia and National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in support of Williams. <a href="http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/previewbriefs/Other_Brief_Updates/10-8505_petitioneramcurichardfriedman.authcheckdam.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view the amicus brief of Richard D. Friedman in support of Williams. <a href="http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/supreme_court_preview/briefs/10-8505_respondent.authcheckdam.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view Illinois' merits brief. <a href="http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/supreme_court_preview/briefs/10-8505_respondentamcundaaand5grps.authcheckdam.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view the amicus brief of National District Attorneys Association, California District Attorneys Association, American Society of Crime Lab Directors, California Association of Crime Laboratory Directors, International Association of Coroners and Medical Examiners, National Association of Medical Examiners, California State Coroners Association and Society of Wildlife Forensic Examiners in support of Illinois. <a href="http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/supreme_court_preview/briefs/10-8505_respondentamcunycountyda.authcheckdam.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view the amicus brief of New York County District Attorney's Office and the New York City Office of the Chief Medical Examiner in support of Illinois. <a href="http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/supreme_court_preview/briefs/10-8505_respondentamcuohioand41states.authcheckdam.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view the amicus brief of Ohio, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Guam, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhose Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming in support of Illinois. <a href="http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/supreme_court_preview/briefs/10-8505_respondentamcuusa.authcheckdam.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view the amicus brief of the United States in support of Illinois. <a href="http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/supreme_court_preview/briefs/10-8505_petitionerreply.authcheckdam.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view Williams' reply brief. <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/10-8505.pdf" target="new">Argument</a> was heard on December 6, 2011. </FONT> </P> <!--- *************************************** ---> <P><FONT face=Arial size=2> <STRONG><U>Messerschmidt v. Millender</U>, 10-704 (cert. granted June 27, 2011)<br> (case below: 620 F.3d 1016 (9th Cir.)) </font></p> <P><FONT face=Arial size=2>Questions presented:</STRONG> </FONT></P> <DIR> <P> <FONT face=Arial size=2> (1) Under the standards of United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 920, 923 (1984) and Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341, 344-45 (1986), are officers entitled to qualified immunity where they obtained a facially valid warrant to search for firearms, firearm-related materials, and gang-related items in the residence of a gang member and felon who had threatened to kill his girlfriend and fired a sawed-off shotgun at her, and a district attorney approved the application, no factually on-point case law prohibited the search, and the alleged overbreadth in the warrant did not expand the scope of the search? (2) Should the Malley/Leon standards be reconsidered or clarified in light of lower courts' inability to apply them in accordance with their purpose of deterring police misconduct, resulting in imposition of liability on officers for good faith conduct and improper exclusion of evidence in criminal cases? </P> </DIR> <P> <FONT face=Arial size=2> <a href="http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/previewbriefs/Other_Brief_Updates/10-704_petitioner.authcheckdam.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view Messerschmidt's merits brief. <a href="http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/previewbriefs/Other_Brief_Updates/10-704_petitioner_texas.authcheckdam.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view the amicus brief of Texas, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Wisconsin and Wyoming in support of Messerschmidt. <a href="http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/previewbriefs/Other_Brief_Updates/10-704_petitioneramcuusa.authcheckdam.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view the amicus brief of the United States in support of Messerschmidt. <a href="http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/supreme_court_preview/briefs/10-704_resp.authcheckdam.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view Millender's merits brief. <a href="http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/supreme_court_preview/briefs/10-704_respondentamcuaclu.authcheckdam.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view the amicus brief of the American Civil Liberties Union in support of Millender. <a href="http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/supreme_court_preview/briefs/10-704_respondentamcunraandcrpa.authcheckdam.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view the amicus brief of National Rifle Association of America, Inc. and California Rifle and Pistol Association Foundation, Inc. in support of Millender. <a href="http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/supreme_court_preview/briefs/10-704_petitionerreply.authcheckdam.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view Messerschmidt's reply brief. <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/10-704.pdf" target="new">Argument</a> was heard on December 5, 2011. </FONT> </P> <!--- *************************************** ---> <P><FONT face=Arial size=2> <STRONG><U>Missouri v. Frye</U> (cert. granted Jan. 7, 2011)<br> (case below: 311 S.W.3d 350 (Mo. App.)) </font></p> <P><FONT face=Arial size=2>Questions presented:</STRONG> </FONT></P> <DIR> <P> <FONT face=Arial size=2> Contrary to the holding in <i>Hill v. Lockhart</i>, 474 U.S. 52 (1985) -- which held that a defendant must allege that, but for counsel's error, the defendant would have gone to trial -- can a defendant who validly pleads guilty successfully assert a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel by alleging instead that, but for counsel's error in failing to communicate a plea offer, he would have pleaded guilty with more favorable terms? </P> </DIR> <P> <FONT face=Arial size=2> <a href="http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/previewbriefs/Other_Brief_Updates/10-444_petitioner_brief_missuri.authcheckdam.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view Missouri's merits brief. <a href="http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/previewbriefs/Other_Brief_Updates/10-244_petitioneramcuusa.authcheckdam.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view of the amicus brief of the United States in support of Missouri. <a href="http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/previewbriefs/Other_Brief_Updates/10-444_petitioner_amcu_connecticutothers.authcheckdam.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view the amicus brief of Connecticut, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming in support of Missouri. <a href="http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/previewbriefs/Other_Brief_Updates/10-444_respondent.authcheckdam.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view Frye's merits brief. <a href="http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/previewbriefs/Other_Brief_Updates/10-209_respondentamcuaba.authcheckdam.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view the amicus brief of the American Bar Association in support of Frye. <a href="http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/previewbriefs/Other_Brief_Updates/10-209_respondentamcuconstutionproj.authcheckdam.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view the brief of the Constitution Project in support of Frye. <a href="http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/previewbriefs/Other_Brief_Updates/10-209_respondentamcu3defenseorgs.authcheckdam.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view the amicus brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the Connecticut Criminal Defense Lawyers Association, and the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation in support of Frye. <a href="http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/previewbriefs/Other_Brief_Updates/10-444_petitionerreply.authcheckdam.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view Missouri's reply brief. <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/10-444.pdf" target="new">Argument</a> was heard on October 31, 2011. </FONT> </P> <!--- *************************************** ---> <!--- <P><FONT face=Arial size=2> <STRONG><U>Graham v. Florida</U>, 08-7412 (cert. granted 05/04/09)<br> (case below: 982 So.2d 43) </font></p> <P><FONT face=Arial size=2>Questions presented:</STRONG> </FONT></P> <DIR> <P> <FONT face=Arial size=2> Whether the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment prohibits the imprisonment of a juvenile for life without the possibility of parole as punishment for the juvenile's commission of a non-homicide? </P> </DIR> <P> <FONT face=Arial size=2> <a href="http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/07-08/08-7412_Petitioner.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view Graham's merits brief. <a href="http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/07-08/08-7412_Respondent.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view Florida's merits brief. <a href="http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/09-10/08-7412_PetitionerReply.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view Graham's reply brief. <a href="http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/07-08/08-7412_PetitionerAmCuAmnestyIntl.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view the amicus brief of Amnesty International, et al., in support of Graham and Sullivan. <a href="http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/07-08/08-7412_PetitionerAmCutheSentencingProj.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view the amicus brief of The Sentencing Project in support of Graham and Sullivan. <a href="http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/07-08/08-7412_PetitionerAmCu4HealthOrgs.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view the amicus brief of the American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, National Association of Social Workers, and Mental Health America in support of Graham and Sullivan. <a href="http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/07-08/08-7412_PetitionerAmCu6CorrectionalProfessionalOrgs.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view the amicus brief of Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators, National Association for Juvenile Correctional Agencies, National Juvenile Detention Association, National Partnership for Juvenile Services, American Probation and Parole Association, and International Community Corrections Association in support of Graham and Sullivan. <a href="http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/07-08/08-7412_PetitionerAmCu7FmrJuvenileOffenders.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view the amicus brief of Former Juvenile Offenders Charles S. Dutton, Former Sen. Alan K. Simpson, R. Dwayne Betts, Luis Rodriguez, Terry K. Ray, T.J. Parsell, and Ishmael Beah in support of Graham and Sullivan. <a href="http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/07-08/08-7412_PetitionerAmCuMAMAand7VictimsAgainstLifeSentence.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view the amicus brief of Mothers Against Murderers Association, Robert Hoelscher, Ruth Johnson, Azim Khamisa, Bill Pelke, Aqeela Sherrills, Tammi Smith, and Linda White in support of Graham and Sullivan. <a href="http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/07-08/08-7412_PetitionerAmCuABA.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view the amicus brief of the American Bar Association in support of Graham and Sullivan. <a href="http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/07-08/08-7412_PetitionerAmCutheCenter.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view the amicus brief of Center on the Administration of Criminal Law in support of Graham and Sullivan. <a href="http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/07-08/08-7412_PetitionerAmCu3JuvieDefenderOrgsnew.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view the amicus brief of Juvenile Law Center, National Juvenile Defender Center, Children and Family Justice Center, et al., in support of Graham and Sullivan. <a href="http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/07-08/08-7412_PetitionerAmCuDRLC.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view the amicus brief of the Disability Rights Legal Center in support of Graham and Sullivan. <a href="http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/07-08/08-7412_PetitionerAmCuEducators.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view the amicus brief by Educators in support of Graham and Sullivan. <a href="http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/07-08/08-7412_PetitionerAmCu26ReligiousOrgs.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view the amicus brief of the American Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists, American Catholic Correctional Chaplains Association, American Correctional Chaplains Association, American Friends Service Committee, Buddhist Peace Fellowship, Church Women United, The Council of Churches of the City of New York, Engaged Zen Foundation, The General Synod of the United Church of Christ, Islamic Shura Council of Southern California, Karamah: Muslim Women Lawyers for Human Rights, Mormons for Equality and Social Justice, National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America, National Council of Jewish Women, New Jersey Regional Coalition, Office of Restorative Justice, Archdiocese of Los Angeles, Prison Fellowship Ministries, Progressive Jewish Alliance, Queens Federation of Churches, Rev. Dwight Lundgren, Sister JoAnne Talarico, Trinity United Methodist Church, and United Methodist Church, General Board of Church and Socity in support of Graham and Sullivan. <a href="http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/07-08/08-7412_PetitionerAmCu17Scientists.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view the amicus brief of J. Lawrence Aber, Marc S. Atkins, Camilla P. Benbow, Mary M. Brabeck, Jerome Bruner, Hardin L.K. Coleman, Jane C. Coneley, Kenneth A. Dodge, Michelle Fine, Douglas Fuchs, Lynn S. Fuchs, Frances M. Jensen, Brinton Lykes, Jacqueline Mattis, Pedro Noguera, Isaac Prilleltensky, and Niobe Way in support of Graham and Sullivan. <a href="http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/07-08/08-7412_RespondentAmCuNOVJL.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view the amicus brief of the National Organization of Victims of Juvenile Lifers in support of Florida. <a href="http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/07-08/08-7412_RespondentAmCuCenterforConstJurisp.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view the amicus brief of Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence in support of Florida. <a href="http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/07-08/08-7412_RespondentAmCuNDAA.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view the amicus brief of National District Attorneys Association in support of Florida. <a href="http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/07-08/08-7412_RespondentAmCuCJLF.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view the amicus brief of Criminal Justice Legal Foundation in support of Florida. <a href="http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/07-08/08-7412_RespondentAmCuLouisiana.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view the amicus brief of Louisiana, Alabama, Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming in support of Florida. <a href="http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/07-08/08-7412_RespondentAmCu16HouseMembers.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view the amicus brief of Sixteen Members of the House of Representatives in support of Florida. <a href="http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/07-08/08-7412_NeutralAmCuAMAandAACAP.pdf" target="new">Click here</a> to view the amicus brief of the American Medical Association and American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry in support of neither party. <a href="http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/08-7412.pdf" target="new">Argument</a> was heard on November 9, 2009. </FONT> </P> ---> <!--- *************************************** ---> </BLOCKQUOTE> </td> </tr></table><!--navigation end--> </BODY> </HTML>