As Kent reported yesterday the Supreme Court granted the government’s petition for cert in the Boston Marathon bomber case. The questions presented are whether the trial court held a sufficiently extensive voir dire, and whether it erred by excluding evidence that the bomber’s older brother was allegedly involved in different crimes two years before the Boston Marathon murders.
I spent the first few years of my career at the Justice Department answering defendants’ petitions for cert. The thing that immediately struck me about the government’s cert petition was that the questions presented went only to the application of reasonably settled law to the facts of an individual case. That is generally a classic formulation of a reason that the Court will not grant review. There is no broadly applicable area of law in need of elaboration, and no circuit split.
It could be that the case is sufficiently notorious that the Court thought it worthy of review simply standing on its own. But that seems unlikely; the Court tends to use its scarce time to address contentious legal questions regardless of a case’s public notoriety. So what’s going on? Continue reading . . .