The online symposium that started last week discussing the ins and outs of Chaidez v. United States, the case argued before the U.S. Supreme Court last week asking it to decide whether its landmark Padilla v. Kentucky decision applies retroactively, continues today with new contributions by Rebecca Sharpless, Christopher N. Lasch, and Michael S. Vastine. Today’s contributors recap last week’s oral arguments.
Here’s the complete list of contributions so far:
- Sarah Rose Weinman, Chaidez v. US: A Review of Oral Arguments Before the Supreme Court (November 6, 2012)
- Rebecca Sharpless, Chaidez v. US: An Old Rule in a First Federal Proceeding (November 5, 2012)
- Christopher N. Lasch, Chaidez—An Opportunity for the Court to Continue its Path Away from “Antiretroactivity” and Toward “Redressability” (November 5, 2012)
- Michael S. Vastine, Chess Game with Death: Chaidez and Retroactive Application of Padilla v. Kentucky (November 5, 2012)
- Christopher N. Lasch, Chaidez and the Crumbling Foundations of the Teague Rule (November 1, 2012)
- Craig Siegel, Padilla is Not a New Rule Because Defense Attorneys Have Long Known to Consider Immigration Consequences (November 1, 2012)
- Carlos M. García, The Trials of Padilla (November 1, 2012)
- Yolanda Vázquez, Only Defense Attorneys Can Raise the Competency Bar (October 31, 2012)
- Neil I. Fleischer, Retroactivity Means Relief from Incompetent Counsel (October 31, 2012)
- Maurice Hew, Jr., Chaidez-Padilla Retroactivity is Needed (October 31, 2012)
For more information about the symposium participants, visit the symposium introduction here.