No. 20-5127

Thomas Eric Espinoza v. Colorado, et al.

Lower Court: Tenth Circuit
Docketed: 2020-07-21
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: actual-innocence confrontation-clause constitutional-error due-process expert-examination fair-trial habeas-corpus lab-evidence right-to-present-defense scientific-evidence witness-testimony
Key Terms:
Securities
Latest Conference: 2020-09-29
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Did the trial court deny Mr. Espinoza before trial his right to counsel, a fair process, confrontation, and the right to present a defense that would include the right to have his experts examine and test the lab evidence?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED Fi undamente a /Miscarnige of dustice Exception . I. Petitionerwiff respect filly otempt fo €Spqblish 2 _ “Ftindamenty [Miscarriage of Justice" by demonstra lah ia __hel's ‘aetuall y innocent of fhe crime offemurderiag thi'swornay) —He will prove this /f the whole record 's revewed and Ae Jeter _ bf fhe law ss followed A cred ble showing of actual jaro _ CérICe Provides Qa gare way Fo cons/deratiorof an otherwise . _ untimely aim of Const tutional error QS GP Cpuitable . —CXCEp tion to the or7e-yeer M1714 Pafior Period. see Mc Quiggid V. Feria, 569 U.S. 383, 3 36(2%3)A considering a clam of actual nnecence //7 constextot phe ore Yeqr Simitation period ’r 2514..8.6 faayy(d).7ebe credible —__.q claim of. actug/ [TWIOCELICE LCRLITES @ petitioner Vo a _ Suppor t Ars ellega tors of Constifepionalerrer with _ mew reliable evidence -whe ther’? be excu/pa Poryor Scientific evidence, trustworthy tyewrtress accours, OF eritical ph sical evidence that was Not presented attra 1c _.. See schlup V. De/o, 513 W-S.298,324(/995), The Ge jwey Shor ld be operred/ only wherr q per fier preseaD _ evidence of IPWWCErICe $0 srrerg Pat 4. Court cap_ Not have conkdence Jy the Out Come of retrial _ Unless the Court 1's also Sa distied that the frial was free of nenharmless constthrtenal errer. “Per Kins, 56¢US.aFv0l QUEST LOM) PRESENTED. Fage 2. : __Gitetion Omitted) Did the trial court decry. Mh Lspinoza bebore trial his.cight Lo. cwsel, a. we file cess, ConfrenLa teraaal LO _. preseata.detense that .would iachide the tight te Lave his-experts exarmineand test dhe lal.h auidence please _ See fr Masters case ft GECRUHL Motion for ke fease.ot Lildee _Par_Forens ic esting (24) bi titB Sf the telal couct world lave —pecmitted. Hose 1 Gg hs. wold Mere have beast LE Lia be Cn _tdence.ot Actial tanecence! Did te pteial court Vie late Mr Espinza rights by not-pesting |2 teen Mot ba alyzed ‘tems! hlengwithall te jpems peshed tor DMA _by DA's office if Me. Espineza had his own defence experte would the test bavebeen difteraatin pesuler ! ! phase see Trial teaaseripes Exbiib (LL. Dpages. Did: Phe trie Court violate Me. Espinoza; ghts ; by Perciag. Pron —ttlal court-appointed defense Counse/ Theat Satled . —ta_tnvestigale 'his.aetuel phocence, creating a titra Vires Ach in every thins hey did foe. pe titiener pease. i see Lophs CARAL Ehib:tH nd nohng take ncorple. context andthaldbe argued by a real det lupedta __ Me. Masters Case arly ether bis DNA Euidence vas tasted by fercing the.state of Colerade 7a doSo.wes re prover __jnnecent Lt fhis Lotovable Court would grat the pia ete Bpthpnec believes phe pesil! of. _ fod cates wold be fhe Simm... Wank you oo QuesTtoms) PRESENTED fage 3, —.. Ze Did the Stave District Cour f Vio late (e771 f _yorners lue. process an o/ speedy trial righ é Yy tailing _7e bring bitr 7e frid | on fhe SPaked Aare in thf peoples CARA” Dred the Trial Co turp tease _ Jorisdic. Hort whe St set the rather For frist be yore January fe, 2007 : lease JSée /etitvor For hes e7o Soy _ Cause. /ersuant xo CAR WM Exh b: AM Did the Bis _ trict Court viola we Speedy pria/ rightend be TOCESS — of fe Espinoza_orn he /5s-ies Concerning CTT. Ke 4596 / _ fidvoca y Vv. Bicha, Chit Aetiors No [PLEV -PAE5-4NE an fe ote Ls. Gort of Cohrado | ROW. The same __kssues described in his Ge, hetor Auypened So (tir bpm, yp Bid al fs ? defense cournse/ ariel! Aree tAp_ els counse/ Violate fir. Epincza rights fo effechve _ assistance of Counse/. Prease see Striekland V. Wash_1ng ton, 466. G68 (1984) — Cronic PEELS. Gf b6SY LEA __ptener Vr espect fs My reguests this Ponore ble Court look _ of the complese record regarding the Ip hhectivé @s5dstance. Counse/ "Direct Appeals Counsell. J) berto To _ Carcia CARF3Y6 [8 and his pas tnetbective assistance of Counsel! orr other Peep te, Hé failed yg argue ET r. for L Lega/ Ad\veca cy V Licha CVV Actrer and tay Hisues Conter{i _ this achiere bit ont briehy ner Konred, V7 please See 4 _. Alrtian Kor fialargbex

Docket Entries

2020-10-05
Petition DENIED.
2020-08-06
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2020.
2020-07-31
Waiver of right of respondent Colorado, et al. to respond filed.
2020-05-07
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due August 20, 2020)

Attorneys

Colorado, et al.
L. Andrew CooperOffice of the Colorado Attorney General, Respondent
L. Andrew CooperOffice of the Colorado Attorney General, Respondent
Thomas Eric Espinoza
Thomas Eric Espinoza — Petitioner
Thomas Eric Espinoza — Petitioner