HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.preview/prvwtcheaxzv0001 and id is 1 raw text is:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Docket No. 18-485
EDWARD D. McDONOUGH, Petitioner
V.
YOUEL SMITH, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SPECIAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY
FOR THE COUNTY OF RENSSELAER, NEW YORK, AKA TREY SMITH, Respondent.
MOTION FOR DIVIDED ARGUMENT
1. Pursuant to Rules 28.4 and 28.7 of this Court undersigned counsel, on behalf of the St.
Thomas More Lawyers Guild of Rochester, New York as amicus curiae in support of the Petitioner
(the Guild), respectfully requests that 5 minutes of Petitioner's argument time be allocated to the
Guild on the ground that the Guild will advance an argument helpful to the Court's resolution of the
case that will not otherwise be made.
2. It must be noted at the outset that the Petitioner opposes this motion.
3. Nevertheless, in the course of briefing, the statute of limitations question presented by this
case has come to include vexing due process issues that have confounded federal courts for decades
and are the subject of deep divisions between the Courts of Appeal. Cole v. Carson, 802 F.3d 752, 765-
773 (5th Cir., 2015)(collecting cases)(vacated on other grounds, 137 S.Ct. 497). What seems to be
missing from the arguments of the parties and other amici is a crucial distinction that may help this
Court correctly resolve these divisions: namely, the due process distinction between the deliberate and
willfully dishonest official misconduct involved in this case [covered by Mooney v. Holohan, 294 US
103 (1935) and its progeny] on the one hand; and unintentional, negligent or reckless errors [covered
by Brady v. Maryland, 373 US 83 (1963) and its progeny] on the other.
4. For its part, the United States has thankfully abandoned its previous position, articulated in](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.preview/prvwtcheaxzv0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)