No. 18-762

Jaime Valente Pina, Jr. v. United States

Lower Court: Sixth Circuit
Docketed: 2018-12-14
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Relisted (2)
Tags: conflict-of-interest criminal-indictment federal-prosecution plea-bargaining pre-indictment right-to-counsel sixth-amendment state-charges state-prosecution
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
Latest Conference: 2019-06-20 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches before the filing of a formal federal criminal charge

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Petitioner Jaime V. Pina, Jr., and his younger brother Angel were charged in state court with possession with intent to deliver cocaine. An attorney hired by his family to represent both brothers, and acting under a direct conflict of interest when he did so, met with and learned confidential information from both young men. The attorney then advised Jaime to submit to a police interview with drug task force detectives. The detectives told the attorney that Jaime and Angel’s case was going to be prosecuted federally and that federal agents wanted to interview them. The lawyer failed to obtain proffer protection or engage in any plea negotiations first with the federal prosecutor. When the lawyer took Jaime to make a statement, Jaime incriminated himself with a story that did not include Angel’s involvement. Under these circumstances: I. Does the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attach when federal authorities are actively pursuing an indictment but before the filing of a formal federal charge? II. Does the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attach when federal authorities are actively pursuing an indictment but before the filing of a formal federal charge, where Defendant has been charged with the same crime in state court?

Docket Entries

2019-06-24
Petition DENIED.
2019-06-17
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/20/2019.
2019-03-20
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/12/2019.
2019-03-19
Reply of petitioner Jaime Pina filed. (Distributed)
2019-03-07
Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.
2019-02-08
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including March 7, 2019.
2019-02-07
Motion to extend the time to file a response from February 13, 2019 to March 7, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
2019-01-11
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including February 13, 2019.
2019-01-10
Motion to extend the time to file a response from January 14, 2019 to February 13, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
2018-12-12
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due January 14, 2019)
2018-11-05
Application (18A480) granted by Justice Sotomayor extending the time to file until December 12, 2018.
2018-11-01
Application (18A480) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from November 12, 2018 to December 12, 2018, submitted to Justice Sotomayor.

Attorneys

Jaime Pina
Sarah M. Riley HowardPinsky, Smith, Fayette & Kennedy, Petitioner
Sarah M. Riley HowardPinsky, Smith, Fayette & Kennedy, Petitioner
United States
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent
Noel J. FranciscoSolicitor General, Respondent