The Supreme Court’s Relist Watch aims to shed light on the cases the Court has chosen to re-examine, particularly focusing on petitions that have been “relisted” for consideration in upcoming conferences.

In recent sessions, the Court has steadily worked through its backlog of relisted cases. One notable development came with the denial of review in Escobar v. Texas, where Texas acknowledged that incorrect DNA evidence had played a role in a capital murder conviction.

Similarly, the Court decided against reviewing Franklin v. New York, which addresses the Sixth Amendment rights of defendants to confront their accusers. After this denial, Justices Alito and Gorsuch hinted at the necessity of reconsidering the landmark 2004 ruling in Crawford v. Washington that limited the admissibility of hearsay evidence.

Recent Denials and Ongoing Legal Debates

This week’s decisions also included a refusal to hear Shockley v. Vandergriff, which questioned if a judge’s acknowledgment that a prisoner’s claim was credible amounted to sufficient grounds for them to appeal their habeas corpus petition. Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justice Jackson, expressed dissent regarding this denial.

Upcoming Conference: A Look at the New and Returning Relists

As the court’s next conference approaches, there are 96 petitions slated for discussion. Among them, one case is making its first appearance: Villarreal v. Texas.

In this case, David Asa Villarreal was the defense’s sole witness in his trial for the murder of his boyfriend. His testimony was interrupted by a lengthy recess, during which the presiding judge effectively barred communications between Villarreal and his attorney regarding the testimony itself. After finishing his testimony, Villarreal was convicted and sentenced to 60 years in prison.

Key Issues in Villarreal’s Case

Villarreal’s legal arguments draw upon two critical Supreme Court rulings regarding the Sixth Amendment. **Geders v. United States** determined that forbidding a defendant from consulting with his attorney during an overnight break violates their rights. Conversely, **Perry v. Leeke** allowed for attorneys and clients to refrain from discussions during brief pauses.

With the Texas Court affirming Villarreal’s conviction, albeit with noted divisions among the lower courts regarding this issue, the case raises pressing questions on the limitations of a defendant’s rights regarding legal counsel.

Overview of New and Returning Relists

New Relist

• Villarreal v. Texas, 24-557 – Examining if a trial court infringes on a defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights by prohibiting discussions with counsel during an overnight recess.

Returning Relists

• Apache Stronghold v. United States, 24-291 – Discusses if government actions that destroy a sacred site substantially burden religious exercise under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
• Ocean State Tactical, LLC v. Rhode Island, 24-131 – Considers the constitutionality of a retrospective ban on widely-used ammunition-feeding devices.
• Snope v. Brown, 24-203 – Addresses Maryland’s authority to ban semiautomatic rifles commonly used for lawful purposes.
• L.M. v. Town of Middleborough, Massachusetts, 24-410 – Evaluates if schools can assume ideological speech by students equates to substantial disruption without specific targeting.
• Neilly v. Michigan, 24-395 – Questions whether ordered restitution in criminal sentences constitutes punishment under the Constitution’s ex post facto clause.
• Ellingburg v. United States, 24-482 – Investigates the penal nature of criminal restitution in line with the ex post facto clause.