No. 19-8808

Randolph Ashford v. Michael Stephan, Warden

Lower Court: Fourth Circuit
Docketed: 2020-06-24
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: 14th-amendment 6th-amendment constitutional-rights due-process evidence-tampering evidence-withholding ineffective-assistance ineffective-assistance-of-counsel jury-misconduct prosecutorial-misconduct trial-counsel
Key Terms:
DueProcess FourthAmendment HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference: 2020-09-29
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Was the State of South Carolina City of Columbia violate Ashford's 4th, 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendment rights by withholding evidence

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED : ' Was the State of South Carolina City of Columbia, violate Ashford 4th, Sth, 6th, and 14th Amendment to the United States Constitutional Rights by Withholding evidence. Was trial counsel ineffective for failing to object to the solicitors closing arguments, by vouching for the credibility of state's witnessess. Was trial counsel ineffective for failing to object to crime scene contamination of the crime scene evidence presented at trial and admitted into evidence. : . . \ . Wsa trial counsel ineffective for failing to object to the courts jury charge of the weight of the evidence by trial judge. . a Was trial counsel ineffective fo failing to object to the juror : misconduct, stating I've heard all I need to hear during trial Was trial counsel ineffective for failing to object to inappro: “priate behavior of individuals in the gallery during trial. . Was trial counsel ineffective for failing to quash the illegal, void indictments prior to trial. . i ; ae : ~& ; Was trial counsel ineffective for failing to object to the jury _ -viewing the video tape prior statement of the victim during deliberation. . : Was trial court in error for refusing to grant a mistrial, due to two separate outbursts made from the state key witness during the trial. EN _'

Docket Entries

2020-10-05
Petition DENIED.
2020-07-16
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2020.
2020-07-09
Waiver of right of respondent Michael Stephan to respond filed.
2020-06-16
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due July 24, 2020)
2020-03-05
Application (19A970) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until July 2, 2020.
2020-02-26
Application (19A970) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from May 3, 2020 to July 2, 2020, submitted to The Chief Justice.

Attorneys

Michael Stephan
Caroline Marie ScrantomSouth Carolina Attorney General's Office, Respondent
Caroline Marie ScrantomSouth Carolina Attorney General's Office, Respondent
Randolph Ashford
Randolph Ashford — Petitioner
Randolph Ashford — Petitioner