The Court is set to hear five cases in its first week this term:

1. Williams v. Washington on Monday, October 7.
2. Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger on Monday, October 7.
3. Garland, Att’y Gen. v. Vanderstok on Tuesday, October 8.
4. Lackey v. Stinnie on Tuesday, October 8.
5. Glossip v. Oklahoma on Wednesday, October 9.

You can listen to the oral arguments on the day each argument is held here. You can also read the oral argument transcripts on the day each argument is held here.

Although there are many notable cases to be heard this term, this first week is full of highly discussed cases. The Justices will hear all about firearms, the breadth of Brady v. Maryland and Napue v. Illinois for a capital conviction, civil procedure jurisdiction, state administrative remedies, and what qualifies as prevailing on the merits!

I plan to post separately for Glossip v. Oklahoma on October 9th, but there is something somewhat unique to note before you listen to the oral argument. The Supreme Court appointed an attorney, Christopher G. Michel, to argue the case as amicus curiae in support of the judgment below. The Court did so because both parties (Glossip and Oklahoma) agree that Glossip’s conviction should be vacated.

So how did this happen?

On January 7, 1997, Justin Sneed murdered Barry Van Treese. Sneed was then arrested and, in exchange for avoiding a death sentence, Sneed told law enforcement that Glossip paid him to murder Van Treese. Glossip was already tied to the murder, but was charged only as an accessory after-the-fact. After Sneed’s disclosure, Glossip was charged with murder.

Glossip was tried, convicted, and sentenced to death. Sneed testified at trial consistent with his prior disclosure. His testimony was the only direct evidence supporting Glossip’s role in the murder. Both Glossip and Oklahoma argue that Sneed’s testimony at trial, and his credibility specifically, were crucial to Glossip’s conviction. However, the State prior to trial failed to disclose that Sneed was seen by a psychiatrist after his arrest and prescribed lithium and that he suffered from untreated bipolar disorder. The State also allowed Sneed to testify falsely that he had never seen a psychiatrist.

Nearly 20 years after Glossip’s conviction, the State disclosed this information to Glossip. Glossip and Oklahoma believe that these newly disclosed records show that the State knew about Sneed’s condition and treatment history at the trial but failed to disclose the information to Glossip.

Both parties agree that these actions violated both Brady and Napue. Mr. Michel, as amicus curiae, will argue that Glossip’s conviction should stand.

The history of amicus curiae is quite fascinating itself, and perhaps I will have a full post about the history at a later date. If you are curious to learn more now, I recommend reading Katherine Shaw’s 2016 article about evaluating amicus invitations and the American Constitution Society’s overview of the Supreme Court’s amicus appointment practice.