SCOTUS Catch-all

[nycfan]

“… State lawmakers from both political parties, along with celebrities like Kim Kardashian, had called for clemency or a new trial.

Most crucially, Attorney General Gentner Drummond of Oklahoma, a Republican, had asked the justices to throw out Mr. Glossip’s 2004 conviction and order a retrial.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Amy Coney Barrett dissented in whole or in part. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, who had heard an aspect of the case as an appeals court judge, was recused from it.

Mr. Glossip was convicted of arranging the death of his employer, the owner of a motel in Oklahoma City. Two independent investigations cast doubt on his guilt, saying critical evidence had been withheld and major testimony was faulty.

Mr. Glossip’s conviction was based almost entirely on the testimony of the state’s star witness, a handyman named Justin Sneed who had pleaded guilty to killing Barry Van Treese, the motel owner, beating him to death in 1997 with a baseball bat.

In exchange for a life sentence, Mr. Sneed agreed to testify against Mr. Glossip, the motel’s manager. Mr. Sneed said Mr. Glossip had instructed him to kill Mr. Van Treese. …”

 

[nycfan]

Also

Lackey v. Stinnie - SCOTUSblog

Independent News and Analysis on the U.S. Supreme Court

www.scotusblog.com

 

[nycfan]

BREAKING: Supreme Court Backs Broad View Of Lawsuit Revival Rule - Law360

Despite fears of "litigation gamesmanship," the U.S. Supreme Court held Wednesday that cases dismissed voluntarily can later be eligible for special judicial relief and reopening, even if a statute of limitations would typically block the lawsuit.

www.law360.com

"Despite fears of "litigation gamesmanship," the U.S. Supreme Court held Wednesday that cases dismissed voluntarily can later be eligible for special judicial relief and reopening, even if a statute of limitations would typically block the lawsuit.

Wednesday's unanimous decision in Waetzig v. Halliburton Energy Services — a technical dispute that could nonetheless have important ramifications — found that cases dropped voluntarily without prejudice qualify as "final proceedings," making them eligible for reopening under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60.

According to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito's opinion, voluntary dismissals fit well within the court's Rule 60(b) power to review "final" acts. Otherwise, he said, voluntary dismissals would end up in a "procedural no man's land," where they wouldn't be considered interlocutory or final. ..."

 

[nycfan]

Also

Lackey v. Stinnie - SCOTUSblog

Independent News and Analysis on the U.S. Supreme Court

www.scotusblog.com

Justices Limit 'Prevailing Party' Status For Atty Fees​

Justices Limit 'Prevailing Party' Status For Atty Fees - Law360

Litigants will no longer be considered the "prevailing party" — and thus won't be eligible for attorney fees — if they achieve courtroom victories via preliminary injunction instead of a final judgment, the U.S. Supreme Court has found, in a ruling that's expected to be a blow to legal advocacy...

www.law360.com

"Litigants will no longer be considered the "prevailing party" — and thus won't be eligible for attorney fees — if they achieve courtroom victories via preliminary injunction instead of a final judgment, the U.S. Supreme Court has found, in a ruling that's expected to be a blow to legal advocacy groups.

In a 7-2 decision issued Tuesday, the majority said the "transient victory" of a preliminary injunction is not enough to declare a litigant the prevailing party, only a final ruling that results in a material change between the parties that's both "judicially sanctioned and enduring."

"Because preliminary injunctions do not conclusively resolve the rights of parties on the merits, they do not confer prevailing party status," the majority said.

"Prevailing party" is a legal term of art which, in the context of civil rights lawsuits, allows legal advocacy groups to recoup attorney fees and costs if they successfully strike down unconstitutional laws or government policies.

Enshrined in Section 1988 of Title 42 of the U.S. Code in 1976, the prevailing party fee-shifting framework has since become a cornerstone of the U.S. system of private civil rights enforcement.

There is widespread disagreement over how often those types of suits are resolved by preliminary injunction rather than by final rulings, but a flurry of amicus briefs from advocacy groups warned that a ruling that narrows the definition of prevailing party would hurt their finances and make it harder to bring cases.

That assessment was shared by groups from the left-leaning American Civil Liberties Union to the archconservative Alliance Defending Freedom. ..."

 

[nycfan]

The Unsubstantiated Allegations Against the Oklahoma AG in the Glossip Case

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Sotomayor , invalidated the murder conviction (and thus also the death sentence) of ...

www.dorfonlaw.org

“On Tuesday, the Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Sotomayor, invalidated the murder conviction (and thus also the death sentence) of Richard Glossip and sent his case back to the Oklahoma courts so that they can either release Glossip or retry him (for what would be his third trial on this charge).

… According to the dissent, Glossip and the state Attorney General--who agreed that Glossip was entitled to a new trial--colluded to exclude evidence from the record tending to show that the prosecutor at the time did not in fact conceal or mischaracterize evidence regarding Sneed's mental health history.

The dissent based this account on material provided by Professor Paul Cassell, who filed a brief on behalf of the surviving family members of the victim. Professor Cassell further expounded his view in an essay this week on the Volokh Conspiracy.

Putting aside the merits, there is a mystery that neither Professor Cassell nor Justice Thomas has solved. Each of them accuses Oklahoma State Attorney General Gentner Drummond of colluding with Glossip to present the Supreme Court with an inaccurate picture of the facts and the record. But they don't explain why Drummond would do such a thing. Indeed, in his brief, Professor Cassell admits that the reasons why Drummond "personally believes that a new trial is warranted" for Glossip are "unclear." Quoting Justice Thomas's dissent in his Volokh essay, Cassell then says that Attorney "General Drummond still has no explanation for why he 'collusively excluded … highly relevant evidence from the record.'"

There is, however, an obvious innocent explanation. There was no "collusion," only agreement. Perhaps Drummond simply reviewed the record and concluded that Glossip's rights were violated.

… Justice Thomas goes beyond insinuation.

He first impugns the integrity of lawyers hired by "a group of legislators opposed to" Glossip's execution by noting that the lawyers so hired work for a firm that is "publicly committed to 'fighting the death penalty.'" (It appears that Justice Thomas thinks this is discrediting in the way that a commitment to public defecation would be. But I digress.)

Drummond's predecessor as Oklahoma AG did not credit the lawyers' work, but when Drummond took office, he apparently did.

Justice Thomas then impugns the integrity of another lawyer.

He recounts that Drummond "appointed Rex Duncan, a personal friend and campaign donor, as independent counsel to reexamine the legitimacy of Glossip’s conviction." (It's so very heartening that Justice Thomas is concerned about appearances of impropriety when government officials accept largesse from personal friends. But I digress again.)

Presumably, Justice Thomas expects the reader to think that Drummond appointed his friend and campaign donor Duncan because Drummond wanted an investigator who would reach a pre-determined conclusion that Glossip's trial was marred by constitutional errors that cast doubt on his guilt.

But, again, why? So far as I can tell, neither Professor Cassell, Justice Thomas, nor anyone else has offered any remotely plausible explanation for whyDrummond would deliberately help a murderer escape justice.

Drummond and Duncan are both Republicans. Each has had political differences with some other Oklahoma Republicans, but that's hardly a reason to doubt their integrity.

Meanwhile, Drummond has announced his intention to run for Governor of Oklahoma. Based on his official bio page, he appears to be quite conservative on immigration, industry regulation, and various other issues. Taking a high-profile stance on behalf of a person convicted of murder is hardly going to benefit him politically. Drummond would thus be likely to do so only if he had some really good reason to take such a stance. …”