No. 19-6912
David Abara v. Jack Palmer, Warden, et al.
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: appeal competency competency-exam criminal-procedure faretta-canvass irreconcilable-conflict right-to-counsel self-representation sixth-amendment trial-court
Key Terms:
DueProcess HabeasCorpus Punishment CriminalProcedure ClassAction
DueProcess HabeasCorpus Punishment CriminalProcedure ClassAction
Latest Conference:
2020-02-21
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether a trial court violates the Sixth Amendment right to counsel by forcing a defendant into self-representation when the defendant and his appointed attorney have developed an irreconcilable conflict
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED SHOULD THIS COURT ADDRESS, IN QUESTION OF FIRST-IMPRESSION, WHETHER IT VIOLATES THE SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO COUNSEL FOR A TRIAL COURT TO FORCE A DEFENDANT INTO SELF-REPRESENTATION WHEN THE DEFENDANT AND HIS APPOINTED ATTORNEY HAVE DEVELOPED AN IRRECONCILABLE CONFLICT? i
Docket Entries
2020-02-24
Petition DENIED.
2020-01-23
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/21/2020.
2020-01-07
Waiver of right of respondents Jack Palmer. et al. to respond filed.
2019-12-10
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due January 13, 2020)
Attorneys
David Abara
Jason F Carr — Federal Public Defenders Office, Petitioner
Jason F Carr — Federal Public Defenders Office, Petitioner
Jack Palmer. et al.
Charles L. Finlayson — Office of the Nevada Attorney General, Respondent
Charles L. Finlayson — Office of the Nevada Attorney General, Respondent