SCOTUSblog had a new Relist (and hold) post yesterday. There is a lot of action in habeas cases.
The biggest news is that the case out of the Second Circuit, Rosario v. Griffin, got relisted. Obviously, I am excited to see what happens with this case.
But there was a lot of other stuff. Two other habeas cases were relisted: Cavazos v. Smith, 10-1115; and Martinez v. Ryan, 10-1001.
According to SCOTUSblog, the issue in Cavazos is whether the Ninth Circuit improperly applied the AEDPA in granting habeas on an insufficient evidence claim where it credited defense expert testimony over the prosecution's expert testimony. The blog indicates that this case has been GVR'd twice before based on whether the Ninth Circuit properly applied the AEDPA. The blog suggests that this could be GVR number three.
As for Martinez, this case seems to have a similar issue as to those in two other petitions recently discussed around here, Cook v. Arizona and Foster v. Texas, which concern a defendant's right to counsel at a collateral proceeding.
The blog also mentions a case that was relisted in the past, Smith v. Bell, 10-8629. It has issues similar to both Martinez and the recent cert. grant in Maples. The blog speculates that the Court could be holding Smith in light of Maples, or holding it pending the outcome of the cert. petitions in Martinez and Foster.
The blog also mentions a case called Bradford v. Thaler, 09-11519, which also has a similar issue to Foster and Martinez. It appears that this case will be submitted to the same conference as Foster.
The blog speculates that all of this action on the issue of the right to counsel in a collateral proceeding may indicate that the Court is going to review the issue.
Finally, the blog notes that cert. was denied in the two pro se cases mentioned in the prior relist post, Winn v. Buss, and Aviles v. Medina. Once again, the blog does not indicate what issues were presented in these two cases. However, the sentence about these two cases was squeezed into the paragraph discussing the right to counsel in a collateral proceeding, suggesting that these cases may have also presented this issue in some way.
Phew. That is a lot of habeas relist action.
Comments