Publications
Rompilla v. Beard (04-5462), Kucera v. Bradbury (04A242) and Kelo v. New London, Conn (04-108)
Greetings, Court Fans!
As promised, here is a follow-up to Tuesday’s update on the Court’s latest order list with the questions presented in Rompilla v. Beard, 04-5462. In that case, a Pennsylvania defendant received a death sentence after the prosecution argued that he was a violent recidivist who had killed someone only three months after being paroled from a previous sentence. In its penalty deliberations, the jury asked several questions about parole and rehabilitation, but the court declined to instruct the jury that, under state law, the only alternative to a death sentence was life imprisonment without parole. The key question presented is whether that refusal was contrary to Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U.S. 154 (1994), in which the Court held that the state could not advance generalized arguments about a capital defendant’s future dangerousness yet at the same time prevent the jury from learning that, if imprisoned, he would never be eligible for parole. Other questions presented concern: whether defense counsel was ineffective where he did not review prior convictions knowing that the prosecution would use them to push for a death sentence, and where the records would have provided mitigating evidence regarding the defendant’s traumatic childhood and mental impairments; and whether counsel’s ineffectiveness warranted habeas relief under the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act.
In addition, the Court issued another order late Tuesday in Kucera v. Bradbury, 04A242, in which Ralph Nader’s supporters applied to Justice O’Connor for a stay, pending submission and disposition of their cert petition, of last week’s Oregon Supreme Court order keeping Nader off the state’s ballot in November because he had failed to obtain a sufficient number of valid petition signatures. Justice O’Connor referred the application to the Court as a whole, which denied it. So it looks like Nader will have to be a write-in candidate in Oregon. Justice Breyer would have granted the stay.
Finally, a minor erratum: the docket number in Kelo v. New London, Conn. is 04-108, not 04-808 as we reported.
Thanks for reading!
Ken & Kim
From the Appellate Practice Group at Wiggin and Dana. For more information, contact Kim Rinehart, Ken Heath, Aaron Bayer, or Jeff Babbin at 203-498-4400, or visit our website at www.wiggin.com.
