No. 19-7359
Danny Guzman-Correa v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: criminal-procedure due-process evidentiary-hearing ineffective-assistance ineffective-assistance-of-counsel jury-consultant lafler-v-cooper missouri-v-frye prejudice public-trial public-trial-violation
Key Terms:
HabeasCorpus
HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference:
2020-02-21
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether reasonable jurist could find it debatable that Petitioner's public-trial violation warranted reversal at the minimum for an evidentiary hearing
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1. Whether reasonable jurist could find it debatable that Petitioner's public-trial violation warranted .. .reversal at the minimum for an evidentiary hearing based on the Governments concession that one was then | necessary to determine prejudice after the District . court precluded Petitioner's retained jury consultant , from attending the trial ? 2. Whether a reasonable jurist could find it debatable counsel provided bad advice to stand trial, rather than plead guilty under Lafler v. Cooper / Missouri v. Frye, ?
Docket Entries
2020-02-24
Petition DENIED.
2020-02-06
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/21/2020.
2020-01-31
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2020-01-10
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due February 21, 2020)
Attorneys
United States
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent