top of page
Search

Today in Supreme Court History: October 6

  • Oct 6, 2025
  • 1 min read

Lopez v. Smith, 574 U.S. 1 (decided October 6, 2014): Court grants cert and upholds state murder conviction where prosecution switched theories at end of trial (defendant aided and abetted murder of wife instead of directly wielding metal bar that killed her); Ninth Circuit had relied on its own precedent, which prohibited such practices, in granting habeas, but 1996 statute restricting habeas only to where state court misapplied federal law refers only to federal law established by the Court (which has been silent on this issue) (this strikes me as odd; Thomas, who wrote the opinion, seems to be saying only SCOTUS can declare federal law -- but if a federal law issue is totally settled and universally accepted, it might never have gotten considered by SCOTUS because no one bothered to litigate it, or there never was a split of authority for the Court to resolve)

 
 
 

Recent Posts

See All
Today in Supreme Court History: March 27

United States v. Cruikshank , 92 U.S. 542 (decided March 27, 1876): The Constitution does not guarantee a right to peacefully assemble, nor a right to bear arms; it merely prevents those rights from b

 
 
 
Today in Supreme Court History: March 26

Baker v. Carr , 369 U.S. 186 (decided March 26, 1962): federal courts have jurisdiction over suits alleging disproportionate redistricting in violation of Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection (on rem

 
 
 
Today in Supreme Court History: March 25

United States v. Quality Stores, Inc. , 572 U.S. 141 (decided March 25, 2014): must withhold FICA from severance pay because it’s “wages” (?) Robertson v. Seattle Audubon Society , 503 U.S. 429 (decid

 
 
 

2 Comments


Syd Henderson
Oct 07, 2025

This reminds me of the time-horrored ploy of prosecutors on finding out the suspect couldn't possibly have done the crime: "He must have had an accomplice" [who wasn't mentioned until this point].

Like
Dan Schiavetta
Oct 07, 2025
Replying to

It certainly sounds like a wrong result. Such an abrupt shift in a capital crime trial, so late, should not have been allowed.

Edited
Like

Thanks for submitting!

bottom of page