Supreme Court Report

Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →

Rogers Lacaze v. Louisiana

Paid petition · Supreme Court of Louisiana, No. 2016-KP-0234 · judgment March 13, 2018

Certiorari denied · October 9, 2018
Pre-decision estimate: 6% cert probability (95% interval 3%–9%)

Before the decision, modestly above the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for a petition filed soon after the judgment below, counsel with five or more prior petitions here, and a circuit split argued in the petition, and down for a state or local-government respondent.

Question presented

  1. The undisputed facts show that Orleans Parish District Court Judge Frank Marullo was a witness in the police investigation relating to the likely murder weapon in this case. Judge Marullo was alleged to have signed the order that released a 9mm gun from police evidence to Petitioner’s codefendant—a gun that was likely then used to murder a police officer and two civilians. During the investigation, Judge Marullo denied signing the order and maintained that his signature had been forged. Judge Marullo subsequently presided over Petitioner’s trial and chose not to disclose the investigation, his involvement in it, or his alleged association with the weapon. He continued his nondisclosure even though the release of the weapon was relevant to Petitioner’s defense. Following this Court’s GVR in light of Rippo v. Baker, 137 S. Ct. 905, 907 (2017) (summarily reversing denial of judicial recusal claim), the Louisiana Supreme Court acknowledged that Judge Marullo had an objectively ascertainable self-interest in avoiding disclosure of his alleged connection to the likely murder weapon: “Realistically, the average judge would be vigilant to avoid being unjustly associated with any wrongdoing surrounding the release of the possible murder weapon” and “harbor[] some sensitivity about” that association. But the court concluded a judge may constitutionally preside despite such self-interest in the case before him—without even disclosing it—and limited this Court’s recusal standard to cases involving bias specifically “for or against” a party. The first question presented is whether Judge Marullo’s failure to recuse, or even disclose, violated Petitioner’s rights under the Due Process Clause.

Counsel of record

For petitioner
Amir H. Ali
Roderick & Solange MacArthur Justice Center

For respondent
Christopher James Ponoroff
Orleans Parish District Attorney's Office

Case

Conference history
Distributed for 3 conferences

Amicus briefs
5 cert-stage

Proceedings

  1. Oct 09 2018
    Petition DENIED. Justice Kavanaugh took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
  2. Oct 01 2018
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/5/2018.
  3. Sep 18 2018
    Rescheduled.
  4. Aug 29 2018
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/24/2018.
  5. Aug 27 2018
    Reply of petitioner Rogers Lacaze filed.
  6. Aug 10 2018
    Brief of respondent Louisiana in opposition filed.
  7. Jun 29 2018
    Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including August 10, 2018.
  8. Jun 27 2018
    Motion to extend the time to file a response from July 11, 2018 to August 10, 2018, submitted to The Clerk.
  9. Jun 25 2018
    Brief amici curiae of Former State and Federal Trial Court Judges filed.
  10. Jun 21 2018
    Brief amicus curiae of Professor Jed Handelsman Shugerman filed.
  11. Jun 18 2018
    Brief amicus curiae of National Jury Project filed.
  12. Jun 11 2018
    Response Requested. (Due July 11, 2018)
  13. Jun 05 2018
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/21/2018.
  14. Jun 04 2018
    Brief amici curiae of Louisiana Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, et al. filed.
  15. Jun 04 2018
    Brief amicus curiae of The Ethics Bureau at Yale filed.
  16. May 30 2018
    Waiver of right of respondent Louisiana to respond filed.
  17. May 17 2018
    Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due June 18, 2018)