No. 18-5985
Jeffery Dana Sparks v. Jeff Premo, Superintendent, Oregon State Penitentiary
IFP
Tags: constitutional-rights criminal-procedure cross-examination death-penalty evidence-presentation expert-testimony expert-witnesses ineffective-assistance ineffective-assistance-of-counsel prosecution-experts prosecution-theory trial-strategy
Key Terms:
HabeasCorpus Punishment
HabeasCorpus Punishment
Latest Conference:
2018-11-16
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether defense counsel in a death penalty trial provided effective assistance
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
Question Presented Whether defense counsel in a death penalty trial provided effective assistance where that counsel failed thoroughly to prepare to cross-examine foreseeable prosecution experts and failed to present all available evidence to contradict the prosecution’s theory of the case. 2
Docket Entries
2018-11-19
Petition DENIED.
2018-11-01
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/16/2018.
2018-10-15
Brief of respondent Jeff Premo in opposition filed.
2018-09-01
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due October 15, 2018)
Attorneys
Jeff Premo
Benjamin Noah Gutman — Oregon Department of Justice, Respondent
Benjamin Noah Gutman — Oregon Department of Justice, Respondent
Jeffery Sparks
Michael David Curtis — Michael Curtis, Attorney at Law, Petitioner
Michael David Curtis — Michael Curtis, Attorney at Law, Petitioner