No. 18-443
Amici (3)Relisted (5)
Tags: capital-punishment clinical-criteria clinical-standards criminal-procedure eighth-amendment intellectual-disability lay-stereotypes medical-standards moore-v-texas
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw Punishment
AdministrativeLaw Punishment
Latest Conference:
2019-02-15
(distributed 5 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the Eighth Amendment and this Court's decision in Moore v. Texas, 137 S. Ct. 1039 (2017) prohibit relying on non-clinical criteria and lay stereotypes, rather than current medical standards, to determine whether a capital defendant is intellectually disabled
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether the Eighth Amendment and this Court’s decision in Moore v. Texas, 137 S. Ct. 1039 (2017) prohibit relying on non-clinical criteria and lay stereotypes, rather than current medical standards, to determine whether a capital defendant is intellectually disabled. 2. Whether it violates the Eighth Amendment to proceed with an execution when the prosecutor and the defendant both agree that the defendant is intellectually disabled and may not be executed.
Docket Entries
2019-03-25
JUDGMENT ISSUED.
2019-03-25
MANDATE ISSUED.
2019-02-19
The petition for certiorari is granted, the judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this <a href = 'https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-443_2b34.pdf'>opinion</a>. <a href = 'https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-443_2b34.pdf'>Opinion</a> per curiam. (Detached <a href = 'https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-443_2b34.pdf'>Opinion</a>). The Chief Justice, concurring (Detached <a href = 'https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-443_2b34.pdf'>Opinion</a>). Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas and Justice Gorsuch join, dissenting (Detached <a href = 'https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-443_2b34.pdf'>Opinion</a>).
2019-02-19
Motion of Attorney General of Texas for leave to intervene as a respondent DENIED. The Court has considered this filing as an amicus brief.
2019-02-04
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/15/2019.
2019-01-14
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/18/2019.
2019-01-07
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/11/2019.
2018-12-20
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/4/2019.
2018-11-20
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/7/2018.
2018-11-19
Response to motion from petitioner Bobby James Moore filed.
2018-11-19
Reply of petitioner Bobby James Moore filed.
2018-11-08
Brief amicus curiae of American Bar Association filed.
2018-11-08
Brief amici curiae of Donald B. Ayer, et al. filed.
2018-11-08
Brief amici curiae of American Psychological Association, et al. filed.
2018-11-07
Motion For Leave to Intervene as a respondent filed by Attorney General of Texas.
2018-11-06
Brief of respondent Texas in opposition filed.
2018-10-04
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 8, 2018)
2018-08-17
Application (18A163) granted by Justice Alito extending the time to file until October 4, 2018.
2018-08-14
Application (18A163) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from September 4, 2018 to November 3, 2018, submitted to Justice Alito.
Attorneys
American Bar Association
Robert M. Carlson — Corette Pohlman, et al., Amicus
American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, National Association of Social Workers, and National Association of Social Workers Texas Chapter
Jessica Ring Amunson — Jenner & Block LLP, Amicus
Attorney General of Texas
Bobby James Moore
Clifford M. Sloan — Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Petitioner
Donald B. Ayer, Bob Barr, Mark L. Earley Sr., David A. Keene, Kenneth W. Starr, Larry D. Thompson, Richard A. Viguerie, and the Constitution Project
Meir Feder — Jones Day, Amicus
Texas
Scott Anthony Durfee — District Attorney's Office, Respondent