No. 18-6504
James D. Russian v. United States
Tags: criminal-defendant criminal-procedure federal-court habeas-corpus haines-v-kerner liberal-construction liberal-construction-rule pro-se pro-se-filings pro-se-pleadings right-to-counsel sixth-amendment substitution-of-counsel
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity Immigration
SocialSecurity Immigration
Latest Conference:
2018-11-30
Question Presented (AI Summary)
When a criminal defendant's pro se filings can be stated as a valid basis for substitution of counsel, must a federal court read those filings in such a manner or explore at a hearing whether that is the complaint being made?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED When a criminal defendant's pro se filings can be read as stating a valid basis for substitution of counsel under circuit law, must a federal court, consistent with the liberalconstruction rule of cases like Haines v. Kerner, read those filings in such a manner, or at least explore at an ensuing hearing whether that is in fact the complaint being made?
Docket Entries
2018-12-03
Petition DENIED.
2018-11-14
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/30/2018.
2018-11-06
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2018-10-26
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due November 30, 2018)
2018-08-14
Application (18A160) granted by Justice Sotomayor extending the time to file until October 29, 2018.
2018-08-09
Application (18A160) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from August 29, 2018 to September 28, 2018, submitted to Justice Sotomayor.
Attorneys
James Russian
Howard A. Pincus — Fed Pub. Def. for Dist. CO &WY, Petitioner
Howard A. Pincus — Fed Pub. Def. for Dist. CO &WY, Petitioner
United States
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent