No. 19-1100

Leroy D. Cropper v. Arizona

Lower Court: Arizona
Docketed: 2020-03-09
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Amici (2) Experienced Counsel
Tags: capital-punishment death-penalty due-process ineffective-assistance ineffective-assistance-of-counsel jury-instructions parole-eligibility parole-ineligibility simmons-v-south-carolina sixth-amendment
Key Terms:
DueProcess Punishment HabeasCorpus JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2020-06-25
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether a death sentence may be carried out when defense counsel unreasonably fails to inform the jury of parole ineligibility under Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U.S. 154 (1994), resulting in prejudice

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED In Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U.S. 154 (1994), this Court held that a capital defendant is entitled to inform the jury about his parole ineligibility when future dangerousness is at issue. In 2016, the Court summarily reversed the Arizona Supreme Court for refusing to allow a capital defendant to inform the jury about his parole ineligibility. See Lynch v. Arizona, 136 8. Ct. 1818 (2016) (per curiam). In this case, the Arizona courts again upheld a death sentence even though the jury was never told that the capital defendant was ineligible for parole. The difference between this case and Lynch is that the jury here was never told because defense counsel never asked. The question presented is: Whether a death sentence may be carried out when defense counsel unreasonably fails to inform the jury of parole ineligibility under Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U.S. 154 (1994), resulting in prejudice. ii LIST OF

Docket Entries

2020-06-29
Petition DENIED.
2020-06-09
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/25/2020.
2020-06-09
Reply of petitioner Leroy D. Cropper filed. (Distributed)
2020-05-26
Brief of respondent State of Arizona in opposition filed.
2020-04-08
Brief amicus curiae of Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice filed.
2020-04-08
Brief amici curiae of John H. Blume, et al. filed.
2020-04-01
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including May 26, 2020.
2020-03-30
Motion to extend the time to file a response from April 8, 2020 to June 8, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.
2020-03-05
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 8, 2020)
2020-02-04
Application (19A735) to extend further the time from February 20, 2020 to March 5, 2020, submitted to Justice Kagan.
2020-02-04
Application (19A735) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until March 5, 2020.
2020-01-02
Application (19A735) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until February 20, 2020.
2019-12-31
Application (19A735) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from January 21, 2020 to February 20, 2020, submitted to Justice Kagan.

Attorneys

Arizona Attorneys for Criminal Justice
Ginger D. AndersMunger, Tolles & Olson LLP, Amicus
John H. Blume, et al.
John Robert MillsPhillips Black, Amicus
Leroy D. Cropper
Melissa Arbus SherryLatham & Watkins LLP, Petitioner
State of Arizona
Laura Patrice ChiassonArizona Attorney General, Respondent