O'Brien v. O'Laughlin, 09A194.

• Citation: 174 L.Ed.2d 602,130 S.Ct. 5,78 USLW 3097,557 U.S. 1301
• Decision Date: 26 August 2009
• Docket Number: No. 09A194.,09A194.
• Parties: Steven O'BRIEN, Superintendent, Old Colony Correctional Center v. Michael O'LAUGHLIN
• Court: United States Supreme Court

557 U.S. 1301

130 S.Ct. 5

174 L.Ed.2d 602

78 USLW 3097

Steven O'BRIEN, Superintendent, Old Colony Correctional Center

v.Michael O'LAUGHLIN

No. 09A194.

Supreme Court of the United States

Aug. 26, 2009.

James J. Arguin, Boston, MA, for petitioner.

Kenneth I. Seiger, Northampton, MA, for respondent.

ON APPLICATION FOR STAY

Justice BREYER, Circuit Justice.

This case arises on an application made to me in my capacity as Circuit Justice. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts seeks a stay of the mandate or, in the alternative, imposition of bail and other conditions on the release of respondent. Respondent was convicted in state court for burglary and assault offenses arising from the severe beating of a woman in her home. On appeal, his convictions were reversed for insufficient evidence by the intermediate appellate court and then reinstated by the Supreme Judicial Court. Respondent then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the District Court. The District Court denied the petition. The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court, granted respondent's habeas petition, and ordered respondent's immediate and unconditional release. 568 F.3d 287 (C.A.1 2009). The Court of Appeals denied the Commonwealth's motion for a stay of the mandate or, in the alternative, for the imposition of bail and eight other conditions of release.

The Commonwealth now applies to me for the same relief. Respondent opposes the application for a stay. With respect to bail and the other eight proposed conditions of release, respondent opposes only the Commonwealth's request for $100,000 in bail. Respondent asserts that his family and friends will be able to raise only $10,000 on his behalf.

There is a presumption of release pending appeal where a petitioner has been granted habeas relief. See Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 774, 107 S.Ct. 2113, 95 L.Ed.2d 724 (1987); Fed. Rule App. Proc. 23(c); this Court's Rule 36.3(b). However, this presumption can be overcome if the traditional factors regulating the issuance of a stay weigh in favor of granting a stay. These factors are: (1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits, which, in this context, means that it is reasonably likely that four Justices of this Court will vote to grant the petition for writ of certiorari, and that, if they do so vote, there is a fair prospect that a majority of the Court will conclude that the decision below was erroneous; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies. Hilton, supra, at 776, 107 S.Ct. 2113;Rostker v. Goldberg, 448 U.S. 1306, 1308, 101 S.Ct. 1, 65 L.Ed.2d 1098 (1980) (Brennan, J., in chambers).

With respect to the first factor, the Commonwealth has not yet filed a petition for certiorari, but has indicated...