No. 19-6252
Edinson Herrera Ramirez v. Maryland
Response RequestedResponse WaivedRelisted (2)IFP
Tags: abuse-of-discretion appellate-review biased-jury criminal-procedure discretion ineffective-assistance ineffective-assistance-of-counsel judicial-discretion jury-selection legal-standard maryland-court-of-appeals peremptory-challenge peremptory-strike prejudice
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
Latest Conference:
2020-02-21
(distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the Maryland court erred in holding that petitioner received ineffective assistance of counsel but failed to prove prejudice
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION(S) PRESENTED WHETHER THE MARYLAND COURT OF APPEALS ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION ‘IN HOLDING THAT PETITIONER HAD RECEIVED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL BY COUNSEL'S FAILURE TO USE A PEREMPTORY STRIKE TO REMOVE A BIASED JURY, BUT THAT PETITIONER HAD FAILED TO PROVE PREJUDICE?
Docket Entries
2020-02-24
Petition DENIED.
2020-01-30
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/21/2020.
2020-01-27
Reply of petitioner Edinson Herrera Ramirez filed.
2020-01-13
Brief of respondent Maryland in opposition filed.
2019-11-19
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including January 13, 2020.
2019-11-14
Motion to extend the time to file a response from December 12, 2019 to January 13, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.
2019-11-12
Response Requested. (Due December 12, 2019)
2019-10-31
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/15/2019.
2019-10-24
Waiver of right of respondent Maryland to respond filed.
2019-09-25
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due November 12, 2019)
Attorneys
Edinson Herrera Ramirez
Steven M. Klepper — Kramon & Graham, P.A., Petitioner
Steven M. Klepper — Kramon & Graham, P.A., Petitioner
Edinson H. Ramirez — Petitioner
Edinson H. Ramirez — Petitioner