Hogan Lovells Partner Cate Stetson Takes Banner 'Serial' Case to SCOTUS
"This case presents an important question of federal law on which state and federal courts are now divided," Stetson, co-leader of the firm's Supreme Court practice, told the justices. A petition is expected in the coming weeks at the high court.
June 19, 2019 at 11:14 AM
5 minute read
A team from Hogan Lovells in Washington is preparing to file a petition at the U.S. Supreme Court that will urge the justices to confront the high-profile murder conviction of the Maryland man who was at the center of the podcast “Serial.”
Adnan Syed's case garnered substantial attention from the podcast, which chronicled—and questioned—the charge that Syed killed his high school ex-girlfriend.
The Hogan Lovells team, led by Catherine Stetson, a partner in Washington and co-leader of the firm's Supreme Court practice, told the justices in a filing on Monday that the petition in Syed's case would be forthcoming. She asked for a 30-day extension so she could submit the petition by Aug. 19.
Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. on Tuesday granted the routine request. As the circuit justice for the Fourth Circuit, Roberts handles such applications arising from cases in Maryland. Earlier in his career, Roberts was a partner at Hogan Lovells.
Syed won a new trial after the 2014 podcast aired, but the Maryland Court of Appeals in March overturned a lower court and reinstated the conviction by a 4-3 vote. Stetson argued on Syed's behalf before the Maryland high court in November 2018.
Then, as now, Syed's primary claim is that his first trial lawyer gave ineffective assistance that was prejudicial by failing to contact a possible alibi witness.
“This case presents an important question of federal law on which state and federal courts are now divided: whether trial counsel's failure to investigate a credible, non-cumulative, and independent alibi witness is prejudicial under Strickland v. Washington,” Stetson told the Supreme Court in her application for an extension, which is the first and only document alerting the court that the petition will be filed.
Stetson also said there is a split among federal and state courts on the issue, asserting that many courts have ruled that failing to contact a key alibi witness is prejudicial and deprives a defendant of a fair trial. The Maryland appeals court said in March that “given the totality of the evidence the jury heard, we conclude that there is not a significant or substantial possibility that the verdict would have been different” had Syed's trial lawyer presented an alibi witness.
The Hogan Lovells pro bono team, working with defense lawyer C. Justin Brown of Baltimore's Brown Law, includes senior associates James Clayton, Kathryn Ali, W. David Maxwell and Katie Wellington, who clerked for Roberts during the 2015-2016 term. Earlier, Wellington clerked for then-Judge Brett Kavanaugh on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Kavanaugh is now a Supreme Court justice.
When Hogan Lovells first became co-counsel with Brown for Syed in 2016, the firm's pro bono partner, T. Clark Weymouth, said in a statement, “We are happy to assist Mr. Brown in his defense of Adnan Syed. It's no secret that many of those subjected to our criminal justice system lack the resources to mount an effective defense. Where, as here, the system fails, the private bar must help to protect the accused's right to a fair trial.”
The statement also noted that “the defense of Mr. Syed is the latest addition to Hogan Lovells' long list of pro bono representations of those who have been wrongly incarcerated.”
Brown, the criminal defense lawyer who'd long represented Syed, said he approached the firm about serving as co-counsel. Brown told the NLJ in 2016 that Syed's case has “gotten to the point where it's so complicated and it demands so many resources. It's hugely advantageous to the client to bring in support and firepower and brilliant lawyers.”
Stetson co-leads the Hogan Lovells' appellate team with Neal Katyal, the former Obama-era acting U.S. solicitor general. Stetson arrived at the the firm, then known as Hogan & Hartson, in 1997 as an associate. In 2005, Stetson testified in support of the confirmation of Roberts, her former colleague at the firm, to the Supreme Court.
“I grew up as a lawyer on Judge [John] Roberts' watch,” Stetson told the Senate Judiciary Committee. “It was my six years working for him at Hogan & Hartson, first as his associate, and later his law partner, that taught me how to be an advocate and a lawyer. And what a teacher to have.”
Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSplit DC Circuit Upholds Trespassing Charge Used in Hundreds of Jan. 6 Cases
When in Doubt: What's a Dubitante Opinion, and Why Do Judges Write Them?
Supreme Court Casts Skeptical Eye Over Death Penalty Appeal
Judges Support Proposed Rule Requiring Court's Approval to File Amicus Briefs
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250