Cameras capture two men and a woman arriving via Jeep at an Artesia, N.M. motel, leaving two hours later with the woman sobbing, and the men returning three hours later without her. See Las Cruces Sun article. Her body is found that afternoon, shot 21 times.
When Rodney Reed first tried to challenge the constitutionality of Texas's postconviction DNA-testing procedures, the Fifth Circuit held his claim time-barred. Supreme Court(2023): Wrong. Fifth Circuit(2025): Point taken. Not time-barred. But because Texas's postconviction-DNA statute isn't unconstitutional, Mr.
And in en banc news, the Sixth Circuit will reconsider its decision, previously reported here to grant habeas corpus to a foster father who was barred from introducing evidence that his accuser had made very similar accusations of abuse against previous foster parents.
A Schrödinger’s motion that has vexed habeas practitioners: How long must a motion for an injunction gather dust on a district judge's desk before it is "constructively denied," allowing the movant to appeal (here, Amazon seeking relief from some NLRB rulings)? Fifth Circuit: See, the thing is, it depends. Dissent: See, the thing is, it depends.
The case is Amazon.com v. National Labor Relations Board, No. 24-50761 (5th Cir. 2025).
Ohio man is convicted of murdering his wife. Yikes! The lead investigator, Jeff Braley, is a serial fabulist, having lied about, among other things, having a master's degree, had attended a college in Florida, having been a U.S. Postal Inspector, and a Special Forces parajumper. Sixth Circuit (unpublished): His testimony wasn't all that important. Habeas denied.
Missouri man is going to trial for dealing meth when he tries to fire his (second) lawyer and defend himself pro se. District court: That's "not a very good decision." Even if you were a lawyer, "pro se is a bad decision." Defendant: Whatever. Court: OK, fine. Defendant is then convicted, receiving 25 years in the slammer. Defendant: Insufficient warning to constitute valid waiver. Gov't: Word.
The Utah Supreme Court unanimously ruled Thursday that "serious" constitutional violations during the jury trial and resentencing for death row inmate Douglas Stewart Carter merit a new trial. See The Salt Lake Tribune article.
Carter, 69, was convicted in 1985 and has spent almost 40 years on death row. Now, he will get another trial.
Yesterday, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Fernandez v. United States, No. 24-556 (May 27, 2025) (cert. granted), to decide “whether a combination of ‘extraordinary and compelling reasons’ that may warrant a discretionary sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(a) can include reasons that may also be alleged as grounds for vacatur of a sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.”
A Schrödinger’s motion that has vexed habeas practitioners: How long must a case gather dust in state court before I can seek federal habeas? Well, an Indiana man convicted of murder files a petition for post-conviction relief in state court, which proceeds to do absolutely nothing with the case for six years. Yikes! Indiana: Apologize for case languishing? No. It was the man's fault! And it was the pandemic! And it was a complicated case!
Today, commonsense won the argument in Parrish v. United States, No. 24-275 (June 12, 2025), holding that a civil litigant who files a notice of appeal after the original appeal deadline but before the court grants reopening need not file a second notice after reopening. The original notice relates forward to the date reopening is granted.