Case Status
5 results
ATKINS, DARYL R. v. VIRGINIA (23435)
Order dated: 09/25/01Docket number: 00-8452
Action:
The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted.
ATKINS, DARYL R. v. VIRGINIA (23435)
Order dated: 10/01/01Docket number: 00-8452
Action:
The order entered September 25, 2001, is amended as follows: “The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to the following question: Whether the execution of mentally retarded individuals convicted of capital crimes violates the Eighth Amendment?”
ATKINS, DARYL R. v. VIRGINIA (23435)
Order dated: 10/29/01Docket number: 00-8452
Action:
The motion of respondent to dismiss the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted is denied.
ATKINS, DARYL R. v. VIRGINIA (23435)
Order dated: 12/03/01Docket number: 00-8452
Action:
McCarver v. North Carolina, to have their amici curiae briefs considered in support of petitioner in this case is granted.
ATKINS, DARYL R. v. VIRGINIA (23435)
Order dated: 02/15/02Docket number: 00-8452
Action:
The motion for appointment of counsel is granted and it is ordered that Robert E. Lee, Esquire, of Charlottesville, Virginia, is appointed to serve as counsel for the petitioner in this case.
A description of the questions presented by the case has been prepared:
1. In Lilly v. Virginia, this Court declared that for purposes of determining whether the Confrontation Clause precludes the admission of a hearsay statement, the admissibility of the selfinculpatory and non-self-inculpatory expressions in that statement should be assessed separately. Must courts determining whether the Due Process clause mandates the admission of a statement under Green v. Georgia and Mills v. Maryland similarly engage in a separate assessment of the admissibility of the self-inculpatory and non-self-inculpatory expressions in that statement? 2. Did he Supreme Court of Virginia err when, in the sentencing phase of a capital trial, it summarily invoked a state hearsay rule to preclude the defendant from presenting relevant, important, and independently reliable mitigating evidence that the defendant had no other means of presenting to the jury?
An opinion has been handed down: