No. 19-7329
Jamaar Jerome Williams v. Jo Gentry, Warden, et al.
Tags: alibi-witnesses habeas-corpus ineffective-assistance ineffective-assistance-of-counsel martinez-standard martinez-v-ryan ninth-circuit ninth-circuit-review post-conviction-litigation post-conviction-relief prejudice prejudice-analysis
Key Terms:
HabeasCorpus
HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference:
2020-02-28
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the Ninth Circuit erred when it concluded Williams had failed to establish prejudice under Martinez v. Ryan because the record clearly shows Williams' underlying claim that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate alibi witnesses had 'some merit'?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED Whether the Ninth Circuit erred when it concluded Williams had failed to establish prejudice under Martinez v. Ryan because the record clearly shows Williams’ underlying claim that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate alibi witnesses had “some merit”? 1
Docket Entries
2020-03-02
Petition DENIED.
2020-02-13
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/28/2020.
2020-02-04
Waiver of right of respondents Jo Gentry, Warden, et al. to respond filed.
2020-01-15
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due February 18, 2020)
Attorneys
Jamaar Jerome Williams
Jo Gentry, Warden, et al.
Michael J. Bongard — Office of the Attorney General, Respondent
Michael J. Bongard — Office of the Attorney General, Respondent