No. 18-6588
Lesley Eugene Warren v. Edward Thomas, Warden
IFP
Tags: capital-punishment character-evidence circuit-split civil-rights death-penalty due-process future-dangerousness parole parole-ineligibility prosecutorial-misconduct sentencing sentencing-procedure simmons-v-south-carolina
Key Terms:
DueProcess Punishment HabeasCorpus JusticiabilityDoctri
DueProcess Punishment HabeasCorpus JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference:
2019-02-15
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Is it an unreasonable application of Simmons v. South Carolina for a State court to deny a parole ineligibility instruction where the prosecution repeatedly implied and suggested that the defendant would kill again if he were not sentenced to death?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED: I. Is it an unreasonable application of Simmons v. South Carolina for a State court to deny a parole ineligibility instruction where the prosecution repeatedly implied and suggested that the defendant would kill again if he were not sentenced to death?
Docket Entries
2019-02-19
Petition DENIED.
2019-01-24
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/15/2019.
2019-01-07
Brief of respondent Edward Thomas in opposition filed.
2018-11-27
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including January 7, 2019.
2018-11-19
Motion to extend the time to file a response from December 6, 2018 to January 5, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
2018-11-05
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due December 6, 2018)
Attorneys
Edward Thomas
Sandra Wallace-Smith — North Carolina Dept. of Justice, Respondent
Lesley Warren