2001 Supreme Court term

REMON LEE v. MIKE KEMNA, SUPERINTENDENT CROSSROADS CORRECTIONAL CENTER.

Dockets 00-6933Argued
AI-generated independent summary

This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.

In brief

Overview

According to Bonnie I. Robin-Vergeer, remon Lee is serving a life sentence without possibility of parole for first‑degree murder and argues he never had a chance to present testimony from witnesses who could have established his innocence.

According to Bonnie I. Robin-Vergeer, lee contends that his failure to comply with two Missouri rules governing motions for continuance should not be an adequate State‑law ground to bar consideration of his federal due‑process claim.

According to Defendant, lee alleges that the trial court denied his rights to due process of law and to effective assistance of counsel guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments when it overruled his motion for a continuance.

A new‑trial motion was filed two weeks after trial and was not heard until two months after trial.

Background and question before the Court

Bonnie I. Robin‑Vergeer, Esq. appeared on behalf of the petitioner.

During oral argument, the Justices asked the petitioner a series of questions about the case.

What each side argues

Petitioner

According to Bonnie I. Robin-Vergeer, lee was never given a chance to present testimony from witnesses who could have shown his innocence.

According to Bonnie I. Robin-Vergeer, lee argues that his failure to follow Missouri rules on continuances should not bar his federal due‑process claim.

According to Petitioner, lee says the trial judge was not told that the witnesses could be located in a reasonable time and would provide the expected testimony.

According to Petitioner, lee cites Missouri v. Cuckovich and other cases to argue that Missouri rules 24.09 and 24.10 applied before and during trial.

Respondent

Source-limited. The record does not yet support a complete account.

What happened at oral argument

Justice Rehnquist and other Justices asked the petitioner a series of questions during the argument.

What the Court decided

Pending This section will be added when the relevant Court material is available.

Why it matters

Source-limited The available primary sources do not support a complete explanation yet.

Terms to know

No glossary terms are available for this guide.

Primary sources

Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.

  • 57cdf1f4d63d888e3123-r1-03f04d4408c6652b.pdforal argument transcript

Guide generated September 19, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.