This week, the Supreme Court denied cert in Medina v. Arizona, No. 13-735. The case presented the question of whether an autopsy report concluding that the death was a homicide caused by blunt force trauma is testimonial. I sure think that this ought to be an easy question to answer in the affirmative. I do not know whether the Court is not ready to answer the question, or it believed that the case was not an appropriate vehicle for resolution of the issue. Another pending autopsy case is James v. U.S., No. 13-632, which was filed on Nov. 22. (There the autopsy report concluded that the cause of death was acute ammonia poisoning, but it did not otherwise indicate that the cause was homicide.) The Government has gotten three extensions of time to file its response, which is now due March 17.
The Court has been sitting on other petitions raising other issues related to forensic reports, and one way or another asking for clarification of Williams v. Illinois. Turner v. U.S., No. 13-127, Ortiz-Zape v. North Carolina, No. 13-633, and Cooper v. Maryland, No 13-644, have all been distributed for conference and held. After Brewington v. North Carolina, No. 13-504, was distributed, the Court requested a response from the state; that was filed on February 3, and the reply brief on February 13. And in Yohe v. Pennsylvania, No. 13-885, filed on January 22, the state filed its response on February 24. So these cases too will soon go on the conference calendar, but the best guess is that they will be held as well, pending completion of the papers in one or more of the other pending cases: Galloway v. Mississippi, No 13-761, filed Dec. 20, 2013, with the state’s response now due, after extension, on March 7; Edwards v. California, No. 13-8618 (in forma pauperis, seeking review of People v. Edwards, 306 P.3d 1049 (Cal. 2013)), filed Feb. 7, with the state’s response due March 10; and Derr v. Maryland, No. 13-637, which has twice been distributed for conference, resulting in a request from the state for a response, due March 17. So I am sure that the Court will be impressed by the fact that there is a lot of confusion in the lower courts; whether it will be motivated to step in is of course another question.
Meanwhile, the Court has denied several petitions raising Williams-related issues. It denied a few, including the one in New Mexico v. Navarette, which I discussed in a prior blog post, on the first day of term (when, by the way, it also denied my petition in Berkman v. Indiana, raising another confrontation issue), and it has since denied a couple of others, Dyarman v. Pennsylvania, No. 13-611, and Lusk v. United States, No. 13-403.
I encourage any readers who are aware of other pending (or recent) petitions that might be of interest to let us know.
