QUESTION PRESENTED:
1. Whether the Michigan Supreme Court's recognition that a state statute abolished the long-maligned diminished-capacity defense was an "unexpected and indefensible" change in a common-law doctrine of criminal law under this Court's retroactivity jurisprudence. See Rogers v. Tennessee, 532 U.S. 451 (2001).
2. Whether the Michigan Court of Appeals' retroactive application of the Michigan Supreme Court's decision was "so lacking in justification that there was an error well understood and comprehended in existing law beyond any possibility for fairminded disagreement" so as to justify habeas relief. Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770, 786-87 (2011).
12-547
Metrish v. Lancaster
Docket No. 12-547
Arguement Date: Wednesday, April 24
Merit Briefs
- Brief for the Petitioner, Linda Metrish, Warden
- Brief for Respondent, Burt Lancaster
- Reply Brief for Petitioner, Linda Metrish
Amicus Briefs
- Brief for the States of Indiana, Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Montana, New Mexico, South Carolina, Utah, Washington and Wyoming in Support of the Petitioner
- Brief for Wayne County, Michigan in Support of Petitioner
- Brief for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers in Support of Respondent
