Editor's Note :

Editor's Note :

This week the blog will publish a multi-part online symposium on United States v. Texas, a challenge by Texas and twenty-five states to the Obama administration's deferred-action policy for immigration. Contributions to this special feature, as well as an “explainer” by this blog's Lyle Denniston, are available here.

Martel v. Clair

Docket No. Op. Below Argument Opinion Vote Author Term
10-1265 9th Cir. Dec 6, 2011
Tr.Aud.
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

Briefs and Documents

Merits Briefs for the Petitioner

Merits Briefs for the Respondent

Amicus Briefs in Support of the Petitioner

Certiorari-stage documents

 
Share:
Term Snapshot
Awards