No. 19-6515
Andre Verlin Anderson v. Vicki Janssen, Warden
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: certificate-of-appealability criminal-procedure criminal-procedure-due-process-eyewitness-identifi criminal-procedure-habeas-corpus-certificate-of-ap Did the district court commit reversible error whe Did the United States Court of Appeals for the Eig due-process eyewitness-identification habeas-corpus motion-to-suppress photographic-lineup reversible-error
Key Terms:
DueProcess HabeasCorpus
DueProcess HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference:
2019-12-06
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Did the district court commit reversible error by denying Petitioner's motion to suppress the unduly suggestive photographic lineup?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED QUESTION ONE: Did the district court commit reversible error by denying Petitioner’s motion to suppress the unduly suggestive photographic lineup? QUESTION TWO: Did the district court commit reversible error when it prohibited Petitioner’s expert on eyewitness identification from testifying at trial? QUESTION THREE: Did the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit commit reversible error in denying Petitioner’s application for certificate of appealability?
Docket Entries
2019-12-09
Petition DENIED.
2019-11-21
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/6/2019.
2019-11-13
Waiver of right of respondent Vicki Janssen to respond filed.
2019-10-15
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due December 6, 2019)
Attorneys
Vicki Janssen
Nick David Campanario — St. Louis County Attorney's Office, Respondent
Nick David Campanario — St. Louis County Attorney's Office, Respondent