No. 18-6309
Warren Justin Hardy v. California
IFP
Tags: comparative-analysis equal-protection fair-trial fourteenth-amendment jury-selection peremptory-challenges peremptory-strike peremptory-strikes racial-discrimination racial-overtones sixth-amendment
Key Terms:
DueProcess Punishment
DueProcess Punishment
Latest Conference:
2019-01-11
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the California Supreme Court's refusal to conduct a meaningful comparative analysis or infer a likelihood of discriminatory purpose violates the Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection and the Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED Whether, in a case with racial overtones, the California Supreme Court’s refusal to conduct a meaningful comparative analysis, or infer a likelihood of discriminatory purpose from the prosecutor’s removal of the only African-American prospective juror, violates this Court’s jurisprudence, the Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection, and the Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial by an impartial jury. i
Docket Entries
2019-01-14
Petition DENIED.
2018-12-27
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/11/2019.
2018-12-13
Brief of respondent People of the State of California in opposition filed.
2018-11-07
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including December 13, 2018.
2018-11-02
Motion to extend the time to file a response from November 13, 2018 to December 13, 2018, submitted to The Clerk.
2018-10-04
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due November 13, 2018)
Attorneys
People of the State of California
Jonathan ames Kline — Office of the California Attorney General, Respondent
Jonathan ames Kline — Office of the California Attorney General, Respondent
Warren Hardy