Supplemental Brief — Charles Russell Rhines, Petitioner v. South Dakota

CASE NO. 17-8791 (CAPITAL CASE)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

___________________________________________________________________________

CHARLES RUSSELL RHINES,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA,

Respondent.

___________________________________________________________________________

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to

The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota

___________________________________________________________________________

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF

IN SUPPORT OF A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

___________________________________________________________________________

Neil Fulton, Federal Defender

By: Jason J. Tupman

Assistant Federal Defender

Office of the Federal Public Defender

Districts of South and North Dakota

200 W. 10th Street, Suite 200

Sioux Falls, SD 57104

(605) 330-4489

Claudia Van Wyk*

Stuart Lev

Assistant Federal Defenders

Federal Community Defender Office

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

601 Walnut Street, Suite 545 West

Philadelphia, PA 19106

(215) 928-0520

*Counsel of Record

Member of the Bar of the Supreme Court

Counsel for Petitioner, Charles Russell

Rhines

Dated: May 29, 2018

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF

Pursuant to Rule 15.8 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the United

States, Charles Rhines calls this Court’s attention to an order from the U.S. District

Court for the District of South Dakota, denying a motion Mr. Rhines had referenced

in his Petition at 9 n.5 and in his Reply at 5. See Order Den. Mot. Amend, Den. Mot.

Relief J., and Den. Mot. Expert Access, 5:00-CV-05020-KES, ECF No. 399 at 3–17,

24 (concluding that it lacked jurisdiction to rule on a motion to amend a prior

federal habeas corpus petition or, alternatively, for Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) relief),

attached as Attachment A. Undersigned counsel received notice of this order shortly

after filing the Reply in Support of a Petition for Certiorari.

In its order, the federal district court incidentally rejected ethical allegations

the State had made against the Federal Community Defender Office for the Eastern

District of Pennsylvania, similar to those the State has made in its Brief in

Opposition to a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari and to which Mr. Rhines has

responded in his Reply at 3 n.1. See Attachment A at 1 n.1 (“Respondent’s ethical

allegations are stricken as scandalous.”).

1

Respectfully submitted,

Neil Fulton, Federal Defender

By: Jason J. Tupman

Assistant Federal Defender

Office of the Federal Public Defender

Districts of South and North Dakota

200 W. 10th Street, Suite 200

Sioux Falls, SD 57104

(605) 330-4489

Claudia Van Wyk*

Stuart B. Lev

Assistant Federal Defenders

Federal Community Defender Office

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

601 Walnut Street, Suite 545 West

Philadelphia, PA 19106

(215) 928-0520

*Counsel ofRecord

Member of the Bar of the Supreme Court

Counsel for Petitioner, Cha11es Russell

Rhines

Dated: May 29, 2018

2