Introduction: The Tenth Anniversary of the ABA Capital Defense Guidelines: The Road Traveled and the Road to be Traveled Part One

=2571003, while the special concerns of capital cases under warrant should be dealt with through a rule addressed to that context. 90. In Landrigan’s case, for example, counsel would have had to file a moonshot certiorari petition in a situation where he had been the prevailing party below. See SHAPIRO ET AL., supra note 2, at 88-89, 426. This would be a bizarre requirement indeed to impose on a party opposing his adversary’s motion to vacate an interlocutory restraint entered below. 91. See supra text accompanying notes 14-21 (describing Taylor). The discussion in text also applies to the case of Goodwin, another plaintiff in the same litigation, whose filings a few weeks after Taylor’s included a certiorari petition. See Goodwin v. Lombardi, 135 S. Ct. 780, 780 (2014);