Cory R. Maples, Petitioner v. Kim T. Thomas, Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections
The Court ruled 7–2 that Cory R. Maples, who had been convicted of murdering two people and faced a possible death sentence, should get another opportunity in court because his lawyers at Sullivan & Cromwell had abandoned him.
565 U.S. 266 · No. 10-63 · 2011 term · Roberts Court
Decided Jan 18, 2012 · argued Oct 4, 2011
Civil rights · Indigents: appointment of counsel
Majority opinion: Ruth Ginsburg
The voteMajorityDissent
7–27 in the majority, 2 in dissent
2 dissents (7–2)
Reversed and remanded. Cory R. Maples, Petitioner won.
What this ruling means
Reversed and remanded: the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit and sent the case back to that court for further proceedings that follow the Supreme Court’s ruling.
Cory R. Maples, Petitioner was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Won” means the Court gave that side the result it asked for.
From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
Maples v. Thomas, 565 U.S. 266 (2012), is a United States Supreme Court ruling in which the Court ruled 7–2 that Cory R. Maples, who had been convicted of murdering two people and faced a possible death sentence, should get another opportunity in court because his lawyers at Sullivan & Cromwell had abandoned him.
Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented from the Court's holding, arguing that the procedural default shouldn't be excused.
Data notes
The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 2011 term. Filled: the 7 in the majority. Hollow: the 2 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(7)
Ruth GinsburgWrote the majority opinion
Samuel AlitoWrote a concurrence
Sonia SotomayorJoined the majority
Elena KaganJoined the majority
Stephen BreyerJoined the majority
Anthony KennedyJoined the majority
John RobertsJoined the majority
Dissent(2)
Antonin ScaliaWrote a dissent
Clarence ThomasJoined a dissent
Data notes
Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.
Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- Cory R. Maples, PetitionerPerson convicted of crime
- Respondent
- Kim T. Thomas, Commissioner, Alabama Department of CorrectionsState (Alabama)
- Reached the Court by
- Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
Data notes
The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Decided by
- Federal common law
Data notes
The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- Jan 18, 2012DecidedDecided · Decided 7–2: reversed and remanded. Cory R. Maples, Petitioner won.
- Oct 4, 2011ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari).
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit: petition denied or appeal dismissed, with a dissent.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the Alabama Northern U.S. District Court.
Data notes
From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.
Other decisions on the same issue
11 other argued cases since 1946 on indigents: appointment of counsel, newest first.
- Michael Martel, Warden, Petitioner v. Kenneth Clair565 U.S. 648Mar 5, 2012 · 565 U.S. 648Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
- Rothgery v. Gillespie County554 U.S. 191Jun 23, 2008 · 554 U.S. 191Civil rights8–18–1 band
- Antonio Dwayne Halbert v. Michigan545 U.S. 605Jun 23, 2005 · 545 U.S. 605Civil rights7–27–2 band
- George Smith, Warden v. Lee Robbins528 U.S. 259Jan 19, 2000 · 528 U.S. 259Civil rights5–45–4 band
- Murray, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, et al. v. Giarratano et al.492 U.S. 1Jun 23, 1989 · 492 U.S. 1Civil rights5–45–4 band
- Mallard v. United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa et al.490 U.S. 296May 1, 1989 · 490 U.S. 296Civil rights5–45–4 band
- Pennsylvania v. Finley481 U.S. 551May 18, 1987 · 481 U.S. 551Civil rights6–36–3 band
- Ross et al. v. Moffitt417 U.S. 600Jun 17, 1974 · 417 U.S. 600Civil rights6–36–3 band
- Entsminger v. Iowa386 U.S. 748May 8, 1967 · 386 U.S. 748Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
- Anders v. California386 U.S. 738May 8, 1967 · 386 U.S. 738Civil rights6–36–3 band
- Douglas et al. v. California372 U.S. 353Mar 18, 1963 · 372 U.S. 353Civil rights6–36–3 band
Data notes
Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.
Official record
Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.