A capital week for SCOTUS arguments
I noted here last week that the last set of Supreme Court oral arguments this Term included a number of criminal justice issues. And though last week’s argument in Washington v. Recuenco were perhaps unexciting and received no press coverage, this coming week should keep sentencing fans satiated.
Specifically, on tap for this week is the re-argument in the capital case of Kansas v. Marsh (some background here and here and here) and oral argument in the lethal injection case of Hill v. McDonough (some background here and here). Both should be quite interesting for different reasons.
Though I am not a SCOTUS guru, I assume most re-arguments have advocacy styled for the new voter, which is of course Justice Alito. Since his Third Circuit track record suggests Justice Alito is generally a pro-death-penalty vote, I am eager to see how the state and the defense in Marsh approach re-argument in the case.
The story in Hill concerns whether at argument the case will be framed as a narrow one concerning litigation procedures or a broad one concerning lethal injection’s basic constitutionality. As I explained here right after the cert grant, the narrow procedural issue in Hill seems relatively trivial if a majority of the Court views most lethal injection protocols as constitutional. But, perhaps we will learn at oral argument that some members of the Court view the stakes in Hill to be much higher.
More background on Hill and the stakes involved can be found in this AP story and this local news account. And, to add an extra bit of intrigue, this article details that Virginia is scheduled to execute an inmate by lethal injection the day after Hill is argued.
UPDATE: The Christian Science Monitor has this nice review of the Marsh case, which spotlights that the “rescheduling of the case suggests that the justices were sharply divided over the issue and that Justice Alito may be in a position to cast the deciding vote.” And local press coverage of Marsh can be found here and here.