Legal Opinion
Martel v. Clair
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided March 5, 2012No. 10-1265PublishedCited by 152 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Kagan
A federal statute, § 3599 of Title 18, entitles indigent defendants to the appointment of counsel in capital cases, including habeas corpus proceedings. The statute contemplates that appointed counsel may be “replaced . . . upon motion of the defendant,” § 3599(e), but it does not specify the standard that district courts should use in evaluating those motions. We hold that courts should employ the same “interests of justice” standard that they apply in non-capital cases under a related statute, § 3006A of Title 18. We also hold that the District Court here did not abuse its discretion in…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Brady v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Coleman v. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- Holland v. FloridaSupreme Court of the United States · 2010
- Mayle v. FelixSupreme Court of the United States · 2005
- McFarland v. ScottSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by152 opinions
- Proceeding before the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2015
- Meier Jason Brown v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2013
- United States v. James DinkinsCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2012
- Cary Michael Lambrix v. Secretary, Florida Department of CorrectionsCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2014
- Juan Carlos Chavez v. Secretary, Florida Department of CorrectionsCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2014
147 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.