No. 18-9744
Landon Quinn v. Darrel Vannoy, Warden
Response RequestedResponse WaivedRelisted (2)IFP
Tags: criminal-conviction due-process ineffective-assistance ineffective-assistance-of-counsel non-unanimous-verdict nonunanimous-verdict prejudice prejudice-prong sixth-amendment strickland-standard strickland-v-washington
Key Terms:
DueProcess HabeasCorpus
DueProcess HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference:
2019-11-15
(distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the fact that a criminal conviction was returned by a non-unanimous verdict is relevant to a court's consideration of the prejudice prong of Strickland v Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED 1. Whether the fact that a criminal conviction was returned by a nonunanimous verdict is relevant to a court’s consideration of the prejudice prong of Strickland v Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)? i
Docket Entries
2019-11-18
Petition DENIED.
2019-10-31
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/15/2019.
2019-10-30
Reply of petitioner Landon Quinn filed. (Distributed)
2019-10-15
Brief of respondent Darrel Vannoy in opposition filed.
2019-07-26
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including October 15, 2019.
2019-07-23
Motion to extend the time to file a response from August 14, 2019 to October 15, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
2019-07-15
Response Requested. (Due August 14, 2019)
2019-06-27
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/1/2019.
2019-06-20
Waiver of right of respondent Darrel Vannoy to respond filed.
2019-06-17
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due July 22, 2019)
Attorneys
Darrel Vannoy
Elizabeth Baker Murrill — Office of the Attorney General, Respondent
Landon Quinn
Richard John Bourke — Louisiana Capital Assistance Center, Petitioner