SCOTUSblog put up a new relist post and there are some notable, but difficult to decipher, developments.
According to the post, the Court has relisted two pro se habeas petitions, Winn v. Buss, 10-7867, and Aviles v. Medina, 10-8003. The post does not indicate what the issues are in either case.
So I tried to do some indpendent research into those cases to see what was going on. For the Winn v. Buss case, I found absolutely nothing. No published circuit court decision. No published district court decision.
There were published decisions for the Aviles case (they're available at 2010 WL 3010346 (10th Cir.) and 2010 WL 383140 (dist. ct.)). However, the "published" decision at the circuit court level (it's actually a summary order) was solely a denial of a COA. It would seem like an odd procedural status for the Court to relist a petition. My sense is that, due to the denial of a COA, the Court can, at most, only consider whether or not the denial of a COA was appropriate (but maybe I'm wrong about that). While the facts of the case/issues presented are somewhat interesting (a gang fight at a mall where petitioner claimed self defense, but was precluded from admitting certain exonerating evidence and his counsel failed to admit expert evidence on gang fighting), I didn't see anything in the COA denial (or even the underlying legal issues) that was cert. worthy. But the Court had previously ordered the State to respond, and now it's relisted, so some Justice must see something in the case. I am very curious to see what that may be.
There is also a capital habeas that was relisted. That case is Smith v. Bell, 10-8629. According to SCOTUSblog, the issues in that case are:
(1) Whether the prosecution violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), by withholding exculpatory evidence about testimony by the prosecution’s key witness? (2) Whether instructing a jury to convict if it reaches a mere “satisfactory conclusion” or “moral certainty” of guilt, while allowing jurors to convict “as you think justice and truth dictate,” violates due process? (3) Whether “cause” exists for failing to present an ineffective assistance claim in state court, where such a claim may first be raised in postconviction proceedings, and state-appointed postconviction counsel failed to raise a claim implicating actual innocence?
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.