I guess CAAFlog will have to go back to predicting winners and losers in other beauty contests, today’s orders list (here) has Smith v. United States, No. 10-18 on the Denied side.  Nerad and Kerchner were also denied.  I guess it goes to show that even high powered legal teams can’t guarantee certiorari and that the Golden CAAF is best served when the US is on the left side of the “v.”

6 Responses to “Cert. Denied in Smith”

  1. Bill C says:

    Disappointed, but not surprised. It just seemed to me that the issue was too narrow for them to grant on. But what do I know?

  2. John O'Connor says:

    That was kind of how I saw it too.

  3. Bill C says:

    JO’C: Agreeing with me is generally not good for one’s reputation, so be careful.

  4. John O'Connor says:

    I agree.

  5. Dew_Process says:

    Or, the “second class” speculation is correct.

    Does anyone know if Smith is under any form of post-trial “restraint” sufficient to trigger habeas corpus? If so, depending on the venue, not only would that give him a second bite of the apple, but conceivably could graphically demonstrate the circuit split.

  6. noodle says:

    This had to get at least some votes.

    At the risk of gender stereotyping, it will be interesting to see how JEK and JSS stack up on violence against women / rape. Remember that JRBG voted with the “conservatives” in Vermont v. Brillon.

    The deny suggests to me that violence against women / rape defendants won’t be finding “liberal” Justices in the two newbies.