No. 20-5241
Dewoyne Curtis Potts v. John Garza
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: batson batson-challenge comparative-juror-analysis discriminatory-pretext juror-strike miller-el-standard miller-el-v-dretke mischaracterization-of-testimony ninth-circuit prosecutorial-bias race-based-questioning
Key Terms:
DueProcess HabeasCorpus Punishment JusticiabilityDoctri
DueProcess HabeasCorpus Punishment JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference:
2020-09-29
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Did the Ninth Circuit err in crediting the prosecutor's stated reasons for the strike and failing to find discriminatory pretext under Batson and Miller-El v. Dretke, under the extraordinary circumstances of this case?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
question presented is this: Did the Ninth Circuit err in crediting the prosecutor's stated reasons for the strike and failing to find discriminatory pretext under Batson and Miller-El v. Dretke, under the extraordinary circumstances of this case? i
Docket Entries
2020-10-05
Petition DENIED.
2020-08-13
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2020.
2020-08-07
Waiver of right of respondent John Garza to respond filed.
2020-07-28
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due August 31, 2020)
Attorneys
Dewoyne Potts
Jill Karen Ginstling — Office of the Federal Public Defender, Petitioner
John Garza
Rama Ronald Maline — State of CA-Dept. of Justice, Office of AG, Respondent