In its Conference of June 25, 2015, the Court is considering petitions seeking review of issues such as whether an appellate court can conduct a post-hoc assessment of trial counsel’s performance based on scientific advances not available at the time of trial, whether an officer who fired his service rifle at a vehicle involved in a high-speed chase acted reasonably under the Fourth Amendment, and whether official actions by a Member of Congress to develop, evaluate, and draft legislation that are undertaken prior to the formal introduction of a bill are legislative acts protected by the Speech or Debate Clause.
This edition of “Petitions to watch” features petitions raising issues that Tom has determined to have a reasonable chance of being granted, although we post them here without consideration of whether they present appropriate vehicles in which to decide those issues. Our policy is to include and disclose all cases in which Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, represents either a party or an amicus in the case, with the exception of the rare cases in which Goldstein & Russell represents the respondent(s) but does not appear on the briefs in the case.
[PAGE]22o143[/PAGE]
[PAGE]14-1225[/PAGE]
[PAGE]14-1164[/PAGE]
[PAGE]14-1145[/PAGE]
[PAGE]14-1143[/PAGE]
[PAGE]14-1132[/PAGE]
[PAGE]14-1082[/PAGE]
[PAGE]14-921[/PAGE]
[PAGE]14-656[/PAGE]
[PAGE]14-510[/PAGE]
[PAGE]14-471[/PAGE]
[PAGE]14-410[/PAGE]
[PAGE]13-1467[/PAGE]
[PAGE]13-1379[/PAGE]
[PAGE]13-1305[/PAGE]
Relists
[PAGE]14-181[/PAGE]
[PAGE]14-395[/PAGE]
[PAGE]14-741[/PAGE]
[PAGE]14-848[/PAGE]
[PAGE]14-915[/PAGE]
[PAGE]14-973[/PAGE]
[PAGE]14-981[/PAGE]
[PAGE]14-997[/PAGE]
[PAGE]14-1095[/PAGE]
[PAGE]14-1096[/PAGE]
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY