No. 19-5578

Preston Shands, Jr. v. South Carolina

Lower Court: South Carolina
Docketed: 2019-08-13
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: batson-analysis civil-rights constitutional-challenge criminal-law due-process notice notice-requirement overbreadth overbroad statutory-interpretation statutory-vagueness vagueness
Key Terms:
DueProcess
Latest Conference: 2019-10-01
Question Presented (AI Summary)

As applied to Preston Shands, Jr., is South Carolina's kidnapping statute, S.C. Code Ann. § 16-3-910, vague and overbroad, in violation of due process, because it did not put him on notice of what conduct is prohibited?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED | L | As applied to Preston Shands, Jr., is South Carolina’s kidnapping statute, S.C. Code Ann. | § 16-3-910, vague and overbroad, in violation of due process, because it did not put him on notice | of what conduct is prohibited? IL. Does Due Process confer a right for an accused to have a full and fair opportunity to respond to the prosecution’s best closing argument, meaning the State must open in full on the facts and the law and restrict its reply argument to matters raised by the defense in closing? Il. Did the South Carolina Court of Appeals correctly apply the comparative juror analysis under the third step of Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986)? i | 1 |

Docket Entries

2019-10-07
Petition DENIED.
2019-08-29
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/1/2019.
2019-08-14
Waiver of right of respondent State of South Carolina to respond filed.
2019-08-07
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due September 12, 2019)

Attorneys

Preston Shands, Jr.
E. Charles Grose Jr.Grose Law Firm, Petitioner
State of South Carolina
David SpencerOffice of the Attorney General, State of South Carolina, Respondent