Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Michael Burciaga v. United States
IFP petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 23-2663 · judgment November 14, 2025
Question presented
This Court recognized in Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492, 497 (1896), the common-law tenet that “mere words” do not mitigate murder to manslaughter based on a heat of passion defense. The prevailing view across the country, however, is that words may support a heat of passion defense when those words impart highly provocative information. This informational words exception also existed at common law, though this Court did not have occasion to address it in Allen or subsequently. The question presented is: Whether informational words may constitute adequate provocation for a heat of passion defense.
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Amy Beth Cleary
Federal Public Defender, District of Nevada
For respondent
D. John Sauer
Solicitor General
Case
Subject area
Criminal Procedure (estimated from the questions presented, in the Supreme Court Database’s categories)
Conference history
Distributed for 2 conferences
Order
Order list, October 13, 2026 · Certiorari denied
Proceedings
- Oct 13 2026Petition DENIED.
- Sep 24 2026DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/9/2026.
- Sep 21 2026Reply of petitioner Michael Burciaga filed. (Distributed)
- Sep 14 2026Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.
- Aug 11 2026Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including September 14, 2026.
- Aug 07 2026Motion to extend the time to file a response from August 14, 2026 to September 14, 2026, submitted to The Clerk.
- Jul 15 2026Response Requested. (Due August 14, 2026)
- Jul 02 2026DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/28/2026.
- Jun 24 2026Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
- May 29 2026Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due July 9, 2026)