Relist Watch
on Nov 16, 2016 at 3:15 pm
John Elwood reviews Monday’s relists.
It’s been another quiet week in Lake Swampbegone, with absolutely nothing noteworthy happening that might provide fodder for a semi-humorous or even topical introduction. Which seems fitting, because we also have basically nothing new to report from the court: It neither added to nor subtracted from our tally o’ relists this week. Everything old is new again.
In a weak effort to amuse ourselves, we’ve buried five nearly imperceptible typos in the honor roll of returning relists. First person to spot them all wins a prize!
============================================================
Returning Relists
[page]16-5247[/page] (relisted after the September 26, October 7, October 14, October 28, November 4 and November 10 conferences; as we said last week, it seems like we should be getting an opinion in this case soon)
Issues: (1) Whether police officers who found late-night partiers inside a vacant home belonging to someone else had probable cause to arrest the partiers for trespassing under the Fourth Amendment, and in particular whether, when the owner of a vacant home informs police that he has not authorized entry, an officer assessing probable cause to arrest those inside for trespassing may discredit the suspects’ questionable claims of an innocent mental state; and (2) whether, even if there was no probable cause to arrest the apparent trespassers, the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established in this regard.
(relisted after the October 28, November 4 and November 10 conferences)
Issues: (1) Whether it is a violation of the Sixth Amendment guarantee of conflict-free counsel for a lawyer who previously prosecuted a defendant to represent that same defendant in a subsequent and related capital trial; and (2) whether a valid waiver of the right to conflict-free counsel can be found where the trial record contains no mention of a conflict or waiver, and the post-conviction record does not address, let alone satisfy, the constitutionally required elements of a valid waiver.
(relisted after the October 28, November 4 and November 10 conferences)
Issues: (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit’s panel opinion improperly denied qualified immunity to the officers by considering the validity of the use of force from the perspective of the suspects rather than from the perspective of a reasonable police officer on the scene; and (2) whether the panel opinion considered clearly established law at too high a level of generality rather than giving particularized consideration to the facts and circumstances of this case.
(relisted after the November 4 and November 10 conferences)
Issues: (1) Whether the first attempt to execute the petitioner was cruel and unusual under the Eighth and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution and if so, whether the appropriate remedy is to bar any further execution attempt on the petitioner; (2) whether a second attempt to execute the petitioner will be a cruel and unusual punishment and a denial of due process in violation of the Eighth and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution; and (3) whether a second attempt to execute the petitioner will violate double jeopardy protections under the Fifth and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution.
(relisted after the November 4 and November 10 conferences)
Thanks to Bryan U. Gividen and Conor McEvily for compiling and drafting this update.
