Habeas Corpus Blog

Habeas Corpus - Supreme Court Action 2/25

By JK

Looks like Habeas Day brought out a lot of laughter at the Court today.  I counted at least six times between the two arguments where the transcript reads (Laughter.).  But all the laughter appeared to stop once Justice Kennedy shamed the other judges into taking capital cases a little more seriously.  At least, that's how I read the transcript.  Here's the relevant exchange (from pages 41-42 of the Trevino transcript):

JUSTICE BREYER: I'm being sarcastic there but I don't mean to be. I mean, you see what I'm trying to get to.

JUSTICE SCALIA: It was the nose of the camel, which is what Martinez was -- which is what the dissent said, actually.

(Laughter.)

JUSTICE BREYER: Yes, the dissent said that.

(Laughter.)

JUSTICE KENNEDY: This is very amusing in a capital case.

Here are my quick takes on the two cases from the argument (gonna use some short cuts, sorry for the lack of context):

Perkins - seems to be at least five judges willing to say that actual innocence can be used to get an untimely petition into court, but that there will be some kind of diligence requirement.  Not sure what that will eventually look like though.

Trevino - the argument was a mess.  The parties seemed to argue most over what the Texas law actually says.  The judges seemed a little exasperated by all of it.  But it does appear as if there are at least five judges that seem willing to expand Martinez (or "clarify" Martinez to include State's beyond Arizona).

The transcript for Perkins is here.  The transcript for Trevino is here.

The other big news at the Court today was cert grants in a habeas case and a front-end criminal case.  They are:

Burt v. Titlow, 12-414

(1) Whether the Sixth Circuit failed to give appropriate deference to a Michigan state court under Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) in holding that defense counsel was constitutionally ineffective for allowing respondent to maintain his claim of innocence; (2) whether a convicted defendant’s subjective testimony that he would have accepted a plea but for ineffective assistance, is, standing alone, sufficient to demonstrate a reasonable probability that defendant would have accepted the plea; and (3) whether Lafler v. Cooper always requires a state trial court to resentence a defendant who shows a reasonable probability that he would have accepted a plea offer but for ineffective assistance, and to do so in such a way as to “remedy” the violation of the defendant’s constitutional right.

Kansas v. Cheever, 12-609

(1) Whether, when a criminal defendant who affirmatively introduces expert testimony that he lacked the requisite mental state to commit capital murder of a law enforcement officer due to the alleged temporary and long-term effects of the defendant’s methamphetamine use, the state violates the defendant’s Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination by rebutting the defendant’s mental state defense with evidence from a court-ordered mental evaluation of the defendant; and (2) whether, when a criminal defendant testifies in his own defense, the state violates the Fifth Amendment by impeaching such testimony with evidence from a court-ordered mental evaluation of the defendant.

A cert. grant in a Sixth Circuit case in which habeas relief was granted probably means that a reversal is on the way.  But, even with these elements present, I am not sure whether that is automatic for this one -- Lafler is just too new.  There could be a chance that the Court just wants to give helpful guidance in those cases.  Yeah, that's probably wishful thinking. It seems more likely that a cert. grant to the State means that the Court wants to take the habeas grant away.  

Habeas Corpus - Cert. Grant in Habeas Case

Last week, the Supreme Court granted cert. in A habeas case called Metrish v. Lancaster. It's a recipe for a reversal: it's a habeas grant coming out of the Sixth Circuit and cert. was granted to the State.

Here are the issues: 

(1) Whether the Michigan Supreme Court’s recognition that a state statute abolished the long-maligned diminished-capacity defense was an “unexpected and indefensible” change in a common-law doctrine of criminal law under this Court’s retroactivity jurisprudence, see Rogers v. Tennessee; and (2) whether the Michigan Court of Appeals’ retroactive application of the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision was “so lacking in justification that there was an error well understood and comprehended in existing law beyond any possibility for fairminded disagreement” so as to justify habeas relief, see Harrington v. Richter.

The first issue is a little cryptic.  I believe that the State appears to be challenging the Sixth Circuit's conclusion that there was any type of constitutional violation at all.  It is framed as it would be on direct review.  That's a little different from the all too familiar question found in issue two: a lack of deference to the state court.  Not sure why it isn't framed in habeas terms.  Either way, the cert. grant portends bad news for the habeas petitioner.

In other apparently bad news, the Supreme Court issued opinions today, but did not issue one in Johnson v. Williams.  Just as a reminder, the question presented in that case is: 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.  From the argument, it appeared that the Court was going to avoid the question presented, which, if answered in the State's favor, will be an enormously horrible result for habeas petitioners.  

But if the Court was seeking to avoid the question presented, then it would have issued a short, simple opinion by now.  The longer it takes, the more I fear that this is going to be a split opinion with a terrible result.

Trevino Grant, Haynes Stay, and the Future of Martinez v. Ryan

By Alexandr Satanovsky

    It took the Supreme Court just seven months since handing down Martinez v. Ryan to grant cert. in Trevino v. Thaler, a case that may expand the Martinez rule beyond its most limited interpretation.

    To appreciate Trevino's possible significance, let's step back and consider the potential range of Martinez's doctrinal impact. At its most narrow and limited, Martinez applies only when two conditions are met: (1) the prisoner is raising a substantial trial IAC claim, and (2) state law requires such a claim to be initially reviewed in a collateral proceeding, not direct review. At its broadest, Martinez may apply when (1) the prisoner is asserting any substantial claim on collateral review -- IAC, Brady, jury tampering, etc., and (2) such a claim is most naturally reviewed in a collateral proceeding, determined by whether the factual basis of the claim requires development beyond the trial record. 

    The narrow view has carried the day in the lower courts, and quite understandably: Martinez limited itself to its facts, i.e., an IAC claim brought under a scheme that barred IAC from the direct appeal. But this view is doctrinally incoherent: First, there is no compelling reason to treat IAC claims as unique from other claims, like Brady, that require investigation and extra-record development, which is obviously too burdensome for an incarcerated petitioner. Second, it makes little sense to resurrect legal formalism by approving a distinction between those states (like Arizona), which impose a formal bar to the direct review of certain claims, and others (like Texas), which--although do not formally bar the claims--realistically  render them impracticable on direct review.

*    *    *

    Up until October, there was little suggestion that Martinez may mean something more than the narrow interpretation described above. But that all changed when the Supreme Court stayed a bunch of executions to consider cert. petitions re: Martinez's applicability to Texas, and eventually granted the Trevino petition. And this past Monday, Justices Scalia and Sotomayor issued brief statements concerning the Haynes v. Thaler stay issued several weeks ago.  

    This past month's developments, I think, make for a good prospect that Martinez will be expanded beyond its limited facts. For the following reasons (which, to be sure, are nothing more than my reading of the proverbial tea leaves), I think Trevino will be a stride in the direction of the broad, doctrinally coherent view of Martinez.  

1.  The Genesis of the Martinez Exception: To get some idea as to what the Court may have been thinking when it issued Martinez, consider the following:  First, there was no circuit split for the Court to address when it chose to grant cert. It was a non-capital case and the petition did not gesture toward a gross miscarriage of justice. Indeed, the thrust of the cert. petition was nothing beyond a call for a change in the law on cause-and-prejudice (well, a call for a constitutional right to collateral counsel, which the Court sidestepped), uncannily resembling a merits brief. Second, the ultimate disposition of Martinez was clean and concise: a 7-2 split, one majority opinion and one dissent.

    This "genesis" of the Martinez rule suggests to me that it was deliberately planned, possibly even prior to the cert. grant.  In other words, Martinez was not a haphazard product of untoward necessity, as may be the case when there is a flagrant circuit split (or other non-merits reason for cert.), and when the disposition involves multiple fractured opinions. And if we grant that Martinez was a delibarate decision to change the law, I find it difficult that Court sought nothing more than to carve out an uber-limited and doctrinally incoherent exception.

2. Revisiting the Rule in Trevino: Returning to Trevino, it's notable how quickly the Court chose to revisit and clarify Martinez. It has been just over seven months, with no circuit split and modest percolation. As with Martinez, the most sensible explanation for the Trevino grant, I think, is that the Court wants to change the law and correct the Fifth Circuit's unduly narrow interpretation. If the Court agreed with the Fifth Circuit's narrow approach, I doubt that it would have granted cert so early. Instead, it would have waited for another circuit (read: the Ninth) to hold that Martinez applies to a state that formally allows IAC claims on direct review, and reverse that decision.

3. Scalia's Dissent to the Haynes Stay: Finally--and this last point only little probative value--it is interesting to look at Scalia's statement, dissenting from last month's stay on the Martinez issue.  His gripe with the Stay was not that Haynes's IAC claim may not procedurally benefit from Martinez, but that his IAC claim was, in any event, meritless:

"Even if the Fifth Circuit is incorrect and Martinez does implicate Texas’s system of postconviction review, a stay is unwarranted here because Haynes presents no plausible claim for relief. His complaint is that his trial counsel was ineffective at sentencing. The absolute most to which he would be entitled under Martinez is excuse of his procedural default of this claim, enabling a federal district court to adjudicate the claim on the merits. But that is precisely what the District Court already did on federal habeas review[, finding the claim to be meritless.]" 

Neither Haynes, nor any other stay issued in anticipation of Trevino, had a noted dissent arguing, e.g., that the Court's "limited exception" in Martinez, should be allowed to percolate, before staying otherwise lawful judgments in the name of hastily clarifying the law.

Habeas Corpus - New Cert. Grants

Just last week, I mentioned that the Supreme Court doesn’t have much on its habeas plate this term. Well, that changed a little Monday.  The Court granted cert. in two habeas cases:

(1) McQuiggin v. Perkins, 12-126

Issue: Whether, under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, there is an actual-innocence exception to the requirement that a petitioner show an extraordinary circumstance that “prevented timely filing” of a habeas petition, and if so, whether there is an additional actual-innocence exception to the requirement that a petitioner demonstrate that “he has been pursuing his rights diligently.

(2) Trevino v. Thaler, 11-10870

Issue: Whether Martinez v. Ryan applies when a State court system allows a defendant, in some circumstances, to bring an IAC claim on appeal as opposed to requiring all IAC claims to be brought in a post-conviction proceeding

There is a circuit split on the primary issue in McQuiggin, which truly surprises, and disappoints, me.  Seems like a no-brainer to me: it is an exception to every other procedural default.  Why treat the statute of limitations any differently?  Particularly in a situation where equitable tolling is already allowed.  While the cert. grant makes me nervous, I actually think that it could go as much as 7-2 in favor of the actual innocence exception (hope I don’t have to eat those words).  

The diligence issue is a much closer call. Oddly, the McQuiggin case only dealt with the diligence issue; the Sixth Circuit had previously held that the exception existed.  The Sixth Circuit held in McQuiggin that there was no diligence requirement, which actually makes a lot of logical sense in this context – the whole reason why the exception is necessary is because the petitioner wasn’t diligent in filing the petition.  A diligence requirement would nullify the exception in many circumstances.*  The court's language actually was: "[W]e find that such a reading [which would require reasonable diligence] would render the concept of equitable tolling nugatory."

*That's a small oversimplification.  I guess it could be that a habeas petitioner may not have been diligent in filing the habeas petition, but was diligent once he obtained new evidence.  The only problem with such a distinction is that several courts, including the Ninth Circuit, have held that "new evidence" under the actual innocence exception does not require newly discovered evidence, but simply "newly presented" evidence (i/o/w evidence that may have always been known, but was not presented at trial).  In that situation, the lack of diligence in timely filing the petition would apply equally to the actual innocence claim.  If I have to guess, I'd say that this situation has the potential to pop up much more often than a "newly discovered evidence" actual innocence claim. 

I am worried about the Trevino case.  It will either provide reinforcement and strength to the Martinez rule (hope, hope, hope) or it will painfully limit it down to a very narrow set of circumstances.  Really hard to predict at this point.  The oral argument will provide a very good indication of where this is going.  But my sense is that the Court will have to apply Martinez to this type of situation, or else it would give the States too big an out to avoid the effects of Martinez.

Habeas Corpus - Cert Grant in Habeas Case

Last Friday, the Supreme Court granted cert in another habeas case, Cavazos v. Williams. 

This is the issue:

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

The State had sought cert. on the underlying substantive issue, but cert. was only granted on the procedural issue quoted above.

Just to make it more clear, here is what we are talking about.  And I'll use the facts of Williams.  Petitioner raises a claim in state court based on the trial court's dismissal of a juror during deliberations.  Petitioner argues that the court's actions violated a bunch of different things, including petitioner's federal constitutional right to a jury trial.  The state court addressed nearly all of petitioner's arguments, but did not expressly rule on the federal constitutional claim.  The state court did not mention it in any way.  In other words, the state court simply did not make a specific adjudication on the merits of the federal constitutional claim, even though it was presented to the court.

As with most cert grants in habeas cases these days, this one has me worried.  Greatly worried.  This issue had been settled in the Circuits in petitioner's favor prior to Richter.  But now, at least one circuit (the 11th) has concluded that Richter's holding that summary decisions are presumptively adjudications on the merits expanded the definition of adjudication on the merits to include basically every merits based state court decision, regardless of whether the state court decision addressed the consitutional claim that is being pursued in federal court. 

Apparently, it may be that any silent denial is now presumptively on the merits.  I don't see how Richter can be read that broadly, but apparently that is the new reality.  I guess my problem is that I just don't see the Richter "presumption" anywhere in the statute.  How can it now apply to every state court decision?  In my mind, reading this presumption into 2254 for every state court decision (not just the summary kind) would not be consistent with the idea of comity upon which all of these habeas procedural rules were created.  Petitioner gave the state court the opportunity to rule on the claim, but the state court chose not to do it.  Why should there be deference?  It's not logical.

Let's just hope that I am getting worked up over nothing.  But I fear that this really is where the Court is going to go with this.   

Habeas Corpus - Cert. Grants from Yesterday

The Supreme Court issued an order list yesterday and granted cert. in two front end cases (that had previously been relisted), Jackson v. Hobbs and Miller v. Alabama, both raising the issue of whether it is cruel and unusual punishment to impose a term of life without parole on a juvenile who is convicted of murder.  The cases will be argued "in tandem."

The Supreme Court Cases - Current Term page will (eventually) get updated.

Habeas Corpus - Cert. Grant in Front End Case

Supreme Court issued an order list from last Friday's conference.  No cert grants in habeas cases, but there was a cert grant in a front-end case called Blueford v. Arkansas.  Here's the issue (from SCOTUSblog):

Whether, if a jury deadlocks on a lesser-included offense, the Double Jeopardy Clause bars the reprosecution of a greater offense after a jury announces that it has voted against guilt on the greater offense.

Just to explain a little, in Blueford, the jury was asked to consider capital murder, and, if the jury concluded that defendant was not guilty, then to consider first-degree murder and, if the jury concluded that the defendant was not guilty of that count, then to consider manslaughter.  The jury indicated to the court that it had reached a unanimous conclusion of not guilty on the top two counts but was hung on manslaughter.  The court refused to take a partial verdict on the top two counts, ordered a mistrial, and, over the defense's double jeopardy objection, granted the State permission to retry the defendant on the top counts.

This result conflicted with the other States that allow what is known as an "acquittal first" or "hard-transition" verdicts.  It does not appear that New York has specifically decided this issue, but there is a reason for that (assuming that I understand what all of this "hard-transition" stuff is all about).  The Criminal Procedure Law allows for partial verdicts.  So it is a true "hard-transition" state, which means that this issue actually won't pop up here (unless something unusual happens).

This decision from Arkansas really seems to be an outlier.  It's something that ranks relatively high on the "uncommon sense" meter.  It simply just doesn't feel right, on a gut level, to let the State retry this guy on the top counts after a jury has already unanimously concluded that he was not guilty.  Let's hope that the "good" facts in this case (i.e. the jury's unanimous findings of not guilty on the top counts) make good law.

In any event, Blueford will get added to the Supreme Court cases page soon.

Habeas Corpus - Relist List - Edited

Just in time for today's conference, I am going to link to SCOTUSblog's recent relist post discussing the cases that were relisted after last week's long conference.  And consistent with the overall theme of this Court's term, it is very habeas heavy.

A couple of the relists were cases that were on that site's Petitions to watch:  Bobby v. Dixon and Cash v. Maxwell.

Another relisted case is Buck v. Thaler.  That's the capital case in which the Court recently granted a stay.  I have previously stated that I can't see the Court granting cert. in that case.  I'd be happy to be wrong about that.

Then there are Adams v. Thaler and Rocha v. Thaler, both of which seem to concern the independent and adequate state law ground doctrine.  I guess there still is a little bit left there for the Supreme Court to chip away at.

Then there are two habeas grants, Ryan v. Doody and Harvey v. Cross, where the State was arguing that the Circuit Courts weren't deferential enough to the state courts.  It supports my prior claim that "it's safe to say that there are certain members of the Court who think that any habeas grant under the AEDPA  . . . is questionable."

In a prior post, I had previously covered the petitions to watch for the long conference.  One petition that was relisted, but not mentioned in the SCOTUSblog post was Cavazos v. Smith.  That one's been relisted many,  many times (nine to be exact).  So I am guessing it was just an oversight.  It's still on their petitions to watch page.

And a GVR was granted in one of the cases, Allison v. Diaz, in light of Richter.  That's obviously bad news for the habeas petitioner.

I must have misread the SCOTUSblog petitions to watch page and thought that every petition that they were watching was going to be submitted to the long conference.  That turns out not to have been the case.  But unlike before, that page of petitions is now broken up into conferences.  Which means that many of the cases I mentioned before actually are going to different conferences.

For today's conference, in addition to the relisted cases mentioned above, these petitions to watch will be considered: Harrison v. Gillespie and Wetzel v. Abu-Jamal.

[Edit - there were a couple extra words at the end here that should have been deleted before the original post was posted]

 

Habeas Corpus - Welcome Back, Supreme Court! - Term Preview - Edited

The Supreme Court's October 2011 Term begins this week.  And it's going to be a very active one for habeas cases.  There are already eight cases on the Court's docket.  I am really excited about a couple of those.  I also dread what the outcome is going to be in a couple others.  And at least one I don't really have much of an idea as to what it's all about.  There are also a couple front-end criminal cases of note.  So it's going to be a big term in habeasland. 

And remember, Habeas Day at the Court will be this Tuesday, when the Court intends to hear three (Maples, Martinez, Howe) of the eight.

Since I love lists, here is a list, in descending order, of this Term's habeas cases on the scale of "what I find most interesting" (in other words, 1=most interesting; 8=least interesting)  I'll note my feeling about the outcome of the case as either (a) excited; (b) dread; or (c) uninterested.

The List:

(1) Martinez v. Ryan (to be argued on 10/4)- Excited

Issue: whether a criminal defendant has the right to counsel at a state post-conviction proceeding in order to raise claims (mainly IAC) that can't be raised on appeal

I hate to swim with the current on this one, but it's hard to argue that this isn't the most interesting (and important) habeas case on the Court's docket this year.  It certainly has the greatest potential impact on criminal law.  Not as big as something like Gideon v. Wainwright (right to counsel in criminal cases) or Douglas v. California (right to counsel on appeal if indigent), but it will be the next biggest thing.  No matter which way it goes, it's going to be a fun opinion.  I'd love to see a split court here as the question may come down to how each individual Justice views the role of counsel in the criminal justice system.  Fun, fun, fun.

(2) Greene v. Fisher (to be argued on 10/11) - Dread/Excited

Issue: when is the temporal cut-off for clearly established law under 2254(d)(1)

For such a simple issue, it does seem odd that I would rank it so high.  But this case is going to have the biggest day-to-day impact on habeas cases.  And it raises abstract questions about the interplay between the AEDPA and the retroactivity rules of Teague v. Lane (i.e., whether those latter rules still exist or will the Court's interpretation of 2254(d)(1) in Greene supersede them).  Which makes me excited for this case.  But I have larger feelings of dread about it as I expect a very anti-petitioner decision here. And you can read more about my feelings of dread about this case in this article that I wrote over the summer.

(3) Maples v. Thomas (to be argued on 10/4) - Excited

Issue: whether there was cause for petitioner's procedural default based on (essentially) attorney and state court negligence

The issue in this case is not really that interesting, but the underlying facts are.  This is the case where the Big City law firm dropped the ball on petitioner's case and the state courts did absolutely nothing to straighten out the problem.  And there was so much unfairness to petitioner that it led multiple national news outlets to take up his cause.  And, around here, it led me to create (the little used, but still enjoyable) "uncommon sense meter" -- the rates cases on the scale of whether it defies common sense that some ridiculous procedural rule can allow a court to overlook an obviously unfair result.  This is a case where good facts could chip away at what otherwise is bad law for petitioners.

(4) Lafler v. Cooper (to be argued on 10/31; being heard with Missouri v. Frye)- Dread

Issue: whether a petitioner who was convicted after a trial can argue IAC based on counsel's failure to give proper advice during the plea bargaining stage of the case

This is also a case with a big potential impact on the criminal justice system.  There is plea bargaining in every case and in almost every case that eventually goes to trial, a plea offer was made at some point in the case.  Counsel is supposed to both communicate that offer to the defendant and give advice on it.  The question here is whether petitioner should be able to get any relief when counsel messes that up.  And, if so, whether any relief is available after the defendant is convicted after trial or does that conviction somehow moot out the deficient performance in the plea bargaining stage.  The fairest result here would be that a petitioner should still be able to raise the claim even after a jury verdict.  But, based on the Court sua sponte adding this particular issue to the Frye case, I have a bad feeling about where this is going.

(5) Howes v. Fields (to be argued on 10/4) - Excited

Issue: whether a prisoner, who is excluded from the prison population and questioned, is always "in custody" for Miranda purposes

I am excited about this case since it is a real substantive law habeas case.  Lafler is too, but that substantive law could be extinguished based on where the case goes.  Not this case.  It is a basic up or down vote.  I have searched my memory and I simply can't remember the last up vote on a habeas case in the Supreme Court where the final decision ended up as a grant for the petitioner.  I don't see that as the most likely outcome here.  But there is a chance for that, which gets me excited.  On the other hand, it is a cert. grant from the Sixth Circuit, and that typically means . . . bad news for the Sixth Circuit.*

*I forced my wife to watch the original Bad News Bears again the other day.  I think that is my second favorite movie of all time.

(6) Gonzlez v. Thaler (to be argued on 11/2) - Dread/Uninterested

Issue: (i) was a COA appropriate on a habeas procedural issue? and (ii) something about what date to use to determine when a petition is timely under the statute of limitations

This case kind of scares me a little.  The Court sua sponte added the COA question.  I am not sure why since the Court has already held that a COA would be appropriate in this situation.  Maybe the Court was not satisfied that the circuit court properly followed the rule in determining whether to issue a COA on a procedural issue.  I should probably look at the briefs for some guidance on that.  But there is a potential that this case could place a further restriction on habeas law.  As for the other issue, I re-read the lower court decision and I still don't get it.  It seems very state-specific as to what date should be used as the end date of the appeal.  And each one is a totally legitimate way of looking at it.  Does the Supreme Court need to step into that mess and say that it needs to be the same date in all cases, regardless of the state's individual procedure?  It seems like a waste of time.  State law should control on that question in my mind.  States' rights!  (That's tongue in cheek -- secessionist talk is best left to southern governors with presidential aspirations)

(7) Wood v. Milyard (recent cert. grant) - Dread

Issue: can a circuit court raise statute of limitations defense sua sponte*

*There's those words again.  I talk about how much I love the term sua sponte about midway through this post.

I really dislike the statute of limitations.  To be fair, a statute of limitations isn't the worst thing ever.  But the one-year one is truly oppressive.  I wish it would go away or get ameliorated (like turned into a two or three year limitations period).  But my personal feelings aren't relevant.  I don't think the federal courts dislike it too much.  And, even though it is a defense that the State can use and not a jurisdictional bar, I worry (in the extreme) that the Supreme Court will uphold a circuit court's power to do this.  In a fair world, they won't.  I mean it's typically frowned upon for an appellate court to go around raising defenses sua sponte where a litigant hasn't relied on it below.  But, of course, everything is skewed in habeasland.

(8) Martel v. Clair (to be argued 12/6) - Uninterested/Excited(?)

Issue: can court-appointed habeas counsel be replaced in a capital habeas proceeding

This case appears to boil down to a statutory interpretation issue.  And it's a statute that I am not too familiar with.  So my interest level is not high.  But maybe, just maybe, the opinion could branch out into issues that I am more interested in.  If the Court's opinion could potentially be applicable to the question of replacement of court-appointed counsel in a non-capital case (i.e. when a court grants a petitioner's motion for assignment of counsel under the "likely merit" standard), I'd be interested in that.  And, because the issue presented seems broad (although I don't think in the end that it is), there is a small chance that the Justices could once again veer off into the more abstract concept of an attorney's role in the criminal justice system.  Which could be fun.  But I won't get my hopes up.

[edited the Gonzalez paragraph for clarity]

Habeas Corpus - New Cert. Grant

The Supreme Court issued an orders list today and granted cert. in a habeas case.  It's entitled Wood v. Milyard, 10-9995.  The issues (taken from the order list) are:

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 challenge, 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?

It will be added to the Supreme Court page shortly.