No. 18-1439

Shanker Patel v. California

Lower Court: California
Docketed: 2019-05-16
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response Waived
Tags: accomplice-testimony cautionary-instruction circumstantial-evidence corroboration corroboration-requirement criminal-procedure due-process jury-instructions jury-trial sixth-amendment trial-rights
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
Latest Conference: 2019-10-01
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether a trial court violates the jury trial guarantees of the Sixth Amendment and U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 3 by refusing to grant a defendant's request that the court instruct the jury that the evidence of accomplices ought to be received with suspicion and with the very greatest care and caution and ought not to be passed upon by the jury under the same rules governing other and apparently credible witnesses

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED Where in sixteen States, including California, whence this present case arises, the law requires corroboration of an accomplice’s testimony to sustain a conviction, and When no physical evidence connects a defendant to the crime and the evidence of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is supplied solely by circumstantial evidence, by the trial testimony of an accomplice, and by the out-of-court statements made by another accomplice, and When the defendant requests that the trial court give to the jury a cautionary instruction about the care with which the jury should face accomplice corroboration, THE QUESTION HERE PRESENTED Is: Whether a trial court violates the jury trial guarantees of the Sixth Amendment and U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 3 by refusing to grant a defendant’s request that the court instruct the jury that the evidence of accomplices ought to be received with suspicion and with the very greatest care and caution and ought not to be passed upon by the jury under the same rules governing other and apparently credible witnesses. See, e.g., Crawford v. United States, 212 U.S. 183, 204 (1909).

Docket Entries

2019-10-07
Petition DENIED.
2019-06-19
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/1/2019.
2019-06-12
Waiver of right of respondent California to respond filed.
2019-05-13
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due June 17, 2019)

Attorneys

California
Corey J. RobinsCA, Dept. Just., Off. Atty Gen, Respondent
Shanker Patel
Corey Evan ParkerThe Law Office of Corey Evan Parker, PC, Petitioner