No. 19-6805

Hajes Rabaia v. Gubir Grewal, Attorney General of New Jersey, et al.

Lower Court: Third Circuit
Docketed: 2019-12-03
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
IFP
Tags: brady-disclosure brady-v-maryland constitutional-amendments criminal-procedure due-process evidence fourteenth-amendment judicial-review sixth-amendment supreme-court-precedent
Key Terms:
DueProcess
Latest Conference: 2020-02-21
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Does the holding of Brady v. Maryland apply to the petitioner?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Under the fifth, sixth, and fourteenth amendment, Does the : . holding of Brady v. Maryland apply to the petitioner? : "2. Were the decisions rendered by the Trial Court, District Court, and the Thitd Circuit Court of Appeals in complete conflict with clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States in Brady v. Maryland? 373.U.S 82 (1963) d . c JN wt : . . ; . CONSTITUTIONAL & STATUTORY PROVISIONS i INVOLVED Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S 83° (1963) . , Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 323 (2000} , ‘ Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968) ' In Re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970) , Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U.S. 103 (1935) : Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) : ; . : . 28 U.S.C 2254 (d) , a . Constitutional Amendment 5%? : ; ; Constitutional Amendment eth” ; , a : Constitutional Amendment 14% : . . . 4 . + ee =

Docket Entries

2020-02-24
Petition DENIED.
2020-01-16
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/21/2020.
2019-10-11
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due January 2, 2020)

Attorneys

Hajes Rabaia
Hajes K. Rabaia — Petitioner
Hajes K. Rabaia — Petitioner