No. 20-244

James Michael Fayed v. California

Lower Court: California
Docketed: 2020-08-31
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Tags: double-jeopardy due-process fundamental-fairness right-to-counsel separate-sovereigns silver-platter-doctrine sixth-amendment uncharged-allegations
Key Terms:
FifthAmendment DueProcess FourthAmendment
Latest Conference: 2021-01-08
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches on uncharged murder allegations

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Whether the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches on uncharged murder allegations when a defendant is brought to court to defend himself against those murder allegations, has counsel appear at two hearings to defend against the murder allegations, and the defendant is held without bail based solely on those uncharged murder allegations. Whether the Dual Sovereignty doctrine for “same offense” has been imported from Fifth Amendment double jeopardy jurisprudence to the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Whether in the interests of fundamental fairness, the prohibition against use of the “Silver Platter” doctrine applies when the federal government knowingly collects evidence in violation of a defendant’s federal Sixth Amendment right to counsel for use in a subsequent state court prosecution. ii STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES e People v. Fayed, No. BA3846352, Los Angeles Superior Court, Judgment entered November 17, 2011. e People v. Fayed, No. S198182, California Supreme Court, Judgment entered April 2, 2020. e United States v. Fayed, CR 08-224, Central District of California, Dismissal entered September 15, 2008.

Docket Entries

2021-01-11
Petition DENIED.
2020-12-16
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/8/2021.
2020-12-11
Reply of petitioner James M Fayed filed.
2020-11-30
Brief of respondent State of California in opposition filed.
2020-10-23
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including November 30, 2020.
2020-10-21
Motion to extend the time to file a response from October 30, 2020 to November 30, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.
2020-09-14
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including October 30, 2020.
2020-09-11
Motion to extend the time to file a response from September 30, 2020 to October 30, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.
2020-08-26
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due September 30, 2020)

Attorneys

James M Fayed
Kelly Christine QuinnWerksman Jackson & Quinn LLP, Petitioner
State of California
Idan IvriOffice of the California Attorney General, Respondent