No. 20-5065
IFP
Tags: brady-v-maryland brady-violation capital-punishment due-process false-evidence giglio-v-united-states giglio-violation impeachment microscopic-hair-analysis prosecutorial-misconduct scientific-evidence
Key Terms:
DueProcess
DueProcess
Latest Conference:
2020-09-29
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the prosecution violates Giglio v. United States and/or Brady v. Maryland
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED--CAPITAL CASE 1. Whether the prosecution violates Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) and/or Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), if the prosecution presents false and misleading evidence relating to microscopic hair analysis that exceeds the bounds of science at trial and/or in a postconviction proceeding? 2. Whether the prosecution violates Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), in failing to reveal information at trial or in postconviction that demonstrates impeachment of an FBI Analyst and the limitations of microscopic hair analysis that was used to convict and sentence a defendant to death? i
Docket Entries
2020-10-05
Petition DENIED.
2020-08-27
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2020.
2020-08-13
Brief of respondent State of Florida in opposition filed.
2020-07-10
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due August 14, 2020)
Attorneys
Brett Bogle
Todd Gerald Scher — Law Office of Todd G. Scher, P.L., Petitioner
Todd Gerald Scher — Law Office of Todd G. Scher, P.L., Petitioner
State of Florida
Carolyn M. Snurkowski — Office of the Attorney General, Respondent
Carolyn M. Snurkowski — Office of the Attorney General, Respondent