No. 18-6260
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: abuse-of-discretion constitutional-law constitutional-review criminal-procedure due-process evidence-withholding full-faith-and-credit full-faith-credit-clause judicial-discretion law-of-case perjury prosecutorial-misconduct standing withheld-evidence
Key Terms:
DueProcess
DueProcess
Latest Conference:
2018-11-09
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Did the Maryland court abuse its discretion by refusing to reopen the law of the case established by the testimony of a convicted perjurer, withheld from the defense and to review the constitutional full faith & credit clause?
Question Presented (from Petition)
QUESTION(S) PRESENTED ; DID THE MARYLAND COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY REFUSING TO REOPEN THE LAW OF THE CASE ESTABLISHED BY THE TESTIMONY OF A CONVICTED PERJURER, WITHHELD FROM THE DEFENSE AND TO REVIEW THE CONSTITUTIONAL FULL FAITH & CREDIT CLAUSE?
Docket Entries
2018-11-13
Petition DENIED.
2018-10-25
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/9/2018.
2018-10-23
Waiver of right of respondent Maryland to respond filed.
2018-09-27
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due November 8, 2018)
Attorneys
Maryland
Carrie J. Williams — Office of the Attorney General, Respondent
Carrie J. Williams — Office of the Attorney General, Respondent