Martel v. Clair
Docket No. | Op. Below | Argument | Opinion | Vote | Author | Term |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
10-1265 | 9th Cir. | Dec 6, 2011 | Mar 5, 2012 | 9-0 | Kagan | OT 2011 |
Holding: When evaluating motions to substitute counsel in capital cases under 18 U. S. C. " 3599, courts should employ the same "interests of justice" standard that applies in non-capital cases under 18 U.S.C. § 3006A. In this case, the district court did no abuse its discretion when, using the "interests of justice" standard, it denied Clair"s second request for new counsel. The Ninth Circuit erred in overturning that denial.
Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Kagan on March 5, 2012.
SCOTUSblog Coverage
- Opinion analysis: Rejecting a standard that "comes from . . . . well, from nowhere (Edward Hartnett, March 6, 2012)
- Opinion analysis: Rejecting a standard that "comes from . . . . well, from nowhere (Edward Hartnett, March 6, 2012)
- Opinion analysis: Rejecting a standard that "comes from . . . . well, from nowhere (Edward Hartnett, March 6, 2012)
- Argument recap: Made-up standards, unjustified innuendo, and untested fingerprints (Edward Hartnett, December 15, 2011)
- Argument preview: Replacing habeas counsel for death row inmates (Edward Hartnett, November 29, 2011)
Briefs and Documents
Merits Briefs for the Petitioner
Merits Briefs for the Respondent
Amicus Briefs in Support of the Petitioner
Certiorari-stage documents
- Opinion below (9th Circuit)
Merits Briefs for the Petitioner
Merits Briefs for the Respondent
Amicus Briefs in Support of the Petitioner
[##CERT-STAGE##]