CrimProf Blog

Editor: Kevin Cole
Univ. of San Diego School of Law

Thursday, November 4, 2010

"Call for a Response (CFR) in My Non-Unanimous Criminal Verdict Case"

From Eugene Volokh at The Volokh Conspiracy:

I’m glad to say that yesterday the Supreme Court asked the State of Oregon to file a response in Herrera v. Oregon, the case in which I filed a certiorari petition challenging Oregon’s practice of allowing criminal convictions by nonunanimous juries. (Louisiana is the only other state that allows such convictions in cases to which the Jury Trial Clause applies.)

Such a CFR is necessary but not sufficient for the Court to agree to hear the case. The CFR is a positive signal, since it shows that at least one Justice thought the case had enough possible merit to justify asking that the state respond; most unresponded-to petitions are denied without any response being requested. But of course the Court might well still deny even though it has asked for the response.

| Permalink


Post a comment