Head-to-head
Eric Guerrero, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Petitioner v. Dexter Johnson vs. Michael Mendenhall, Petitioner v. City and County of Denver, Colorado vs. Richard Vasquez, Petitioner v. Eric Guerrero, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
Criminal Procedure cases on the Supreme Court docket, side by side.
The matchup
Docket 25-1003Eric Guerrero, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Petitioner v. Dexter JohnsonBefore argumentArgued Nov 4, 2026Docket 25-1205Michael Mendenhall, Petitioner v. City and County of Denver, ColoradoBefore argumentOctober Term 2025Docket 25-1246Richard Vasquez, Petitioner v. Eric Guerrero, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions DivisionBefore argumentOctober Term 2025
Relationship
- Shared issue
- Criminal Procedure
- Why compared
- Reviewed Criminal Procedure tags connect these current-term public cases.
Questions presented
- Eric Guerrero, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Petitioner v. Dexter Johnson
- Whether a claim relies on a "a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable" when the habeas petitioner could have asserted a claim based on the rule in a prior federal habeas petition?
- Michael Mendenhall, Petitioner v. City and County of Denver, Colorado
- Should this Court overrule Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257 (1960) and hold that the Fourth Amendment prohibits courts from issuing warrants based on hearsay?
- Richard Vasquez, Petitioner v. Eric Guerrero, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
- 1. Does 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(B)(i) impose a “reasonable attorney” or a “reasonable applicant” test for due diligence? If the former, are there exceptions to account for egregious misconduct by an applicant’s lawyer? 2. Would construing the AEDPA to bar merits review in a capital case of a substantial IAC claim, one not previously reviewed on the merits by any court, violate the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments? 3. When an applicant is unaware of the relevant facts when he files a first-in-time application for habeas relief, are later-filed Brady and Napue/Giglio claim “second or successive”? 4. Is a court reviewing a federal habeas application, as a matter of due process or otherwise, required to resolve disputes over authority to speak for the State? What level of deference is owed to the State’s position expressed by an authorized representative?
Go deeper
Sources
- Built from reviewed issue tags and official docket records. Status lines and questions presented come from the tracked case data.