Martel v. Clair (10-1265)

argument 10-1265

Martel v. Clair

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 0m 5 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 4 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the background and procedural history of Martel v. Clare?

John G. Roberts 0:02

We'll hear argument first this morning in case ten twelve sixty five, Martel versus Clare. Mr Campbell.

Unknown 0:09

Mr Chief Justice, it may have pleased the court. For twelve years, Mr. Clare's federal habeas corpus petition was litigated in the Federal District Court in front of the same Federal District Court judge. His petition raised thirty nine challenges to his guilt and penalty, and the judge oversaw years of discovery, presided over a two day evidentiary hearing, and received extensive briefing. When the case was under submission, Mr Clare sent a letter to the judge expressing dissatisfaction with his team of attorneys from the Federal Public Defender's Office and requested that they be replaced. The judge asked both sides' counsel for their position on Claire's complaint The federal public defender responded that after conferring with their client, Mr.

Unknown 0:51

Clare was willing to continue with the f with them for that point. The court then stated it would take no further action. Three months later, just before the court was to issue its decision in the case, Claire complained again. Court issued a written order.

John G. Roberts 1:05

Uh i was there some way that Clare knew that the court was just about to issue its decision?

Unknown 1:09

I think, Your Honor, the um only way it could be sure was the fact that at some point, as I understand it, the district court judge had announced the day he would be retiring, which would be June thirtieth, two thousand and five. So there's probably an inference there, it could be expected that The decision was going to be coming out by the end of the end of June two thousand and five. It was a deadline set for all submissions, wasn't there? There was a initial deadline set for uh the um s filing of the briefing, uh post evidentiary hearing briefing, and there would be no extensions of time. Uh subsequently there was in fact another submission by Mr. Clare in May of two thousand and five with some additional declarations.

Unknown 1:48

The court accepted those declarations but made it clear it would accept no additional submissions in the case unless it ordered otherwise so it could proceed with the decision. Um Once upon uh anyway, at in June uh june sixteenth, two thousand and five, uh Mr Clare sent a second complaint uh about his counsel again, and the district court issued a written order denying that request, finding that Clare's counsel was doing a proper job and did not appear to have a conflict of interest. The district court had an extra excellent factual basis for that conclusion, because it had just completed work on its extensive order denying the petition in Mr. Clare's case. But this petition has something new in the report that his

Unknown 2:29

investigator had turned up this Evident. That's correct, Your Honor. The um what Mr. Clare's um complaint indicated, there was some additional physical evidence that had not been examined or investigated before. Uh he indicated that the Federal Public Defender actually had met with w with the um Orange County law enforcement about the evidence, and he was upset that there was no further action being taken by the Federal Public Defender regarding testing, seeking DNA testing or testing of that evidence.

Samuel A. Alito 2:58

There has been some additional litigation regarding this physical evidence since this the time of the unsuccessful substitution request. Hasn't there been?

Unknown 3:07

That's correct.

Samuel A. Alito 3:11

I am sorry. Could you tell us what has happened with that litigation?

Unknown 3:15

The status of that litigation, once the the petition was denied Um Mr. Clare filed a notice there was a notice of appeal filed by the Federal Public Defender. Uh Mr. Clare also filed a notice of appeal because of the denial of the substitution motion. Those are merged together. Uh Mr Clare was appointed new counsel. The new counsel then filed rule uh a uh rule a request to the district court to entertain a rule sixty B motion. uh which the district court denied. Uh the Ninth Circuit ordered that the District Court consider the Rule sixty B motion. Uh the District Court heard the Rule sixty B motion and then denied it. Uh Mr.