No. 20-5884

Charles Chad Giese v. California

Lower Court: California
Docketed: 2020-10-01
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP Experienced Counsel
Tags: criminal-procedure custodial-interrogation due-process miranda-rights prosecutorial-misconduct right-to-counsel right-to-defense self-defense self-incrimination
Key Terms:
DueProcess FifthAmendment CriminalProcedure
Latest Conference: 2020-10-30
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Did Police Violate Giese's Miranda Rights by Interrogating Him While He was in Custody?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. Did Police Violated Giese’s Miranda Rights by Interrogating Him While He was in Custody? II. By Excluding Evidence of the Decedent’s Drug Use, Was Giese Deprived of His Constitutional Right to Present a Defense? III. Did the Prosecutor Commit Prejudicial Misconduct by Misstating the Law During Closing Argument 1 TOPICAL INDEX Page QUESTIONS PRESENTED . 01 RELEVANT CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS .2 A. State Trial Court Proceedings .2 B. State Court Appellate Proceedings.2 STATEMENT OF THE FACTS ELICITED FROM THE REASONS TO GRANT CERTIORARI .7 I. Certiorari Should Be Granted to Determine if the Police Violated Giese’s Miranda Rights by Interrogating Him While He was in Custody .7 A. Introduction . 0.0.0.0 ccc cee T B. Custodian Interrogation .7 C. The Deputies Subjected Giese to Custodial Interrogation in Violation of Miranda .9 II. Certiorari Should Be Granted Because, by Excluding Evidence of the Decedent’s Drug Use, Giese Was Deprived of His Constitutional Right to Present a Defense . 0.00. e cence eee LL A. Introduction . 0.0 0e0 eee Ll ll B. A Criminal Defendant Has the Constitutional Right to Present a Defense .11 C. Methamphetamine Adversely Affects a Person’s D. Giese Was Deprived of His Right to Present a Defense . 0.00.0 e ee 14 III. Certiorari Should Be Granted Because the Prosecutor Committed Prejudicial Misconduct by Misstating the Law During Closing Argument .15 A. Introduction . 00.000. ce eee ee ee LB B. The Prosecutor Must Not Commit Misconduct . 0.0.00 e eee ee eee 16 C. The Prosecutor Committed Prejudicial Misconduct . 0.0.00 e eee eee eee LT 1. The Prosecutor Improperly Argued That Motive Means First Degree Murder .17 2. The Prosecutor Improperly Argued That Giese Committed Murder Because He Hid Evidence .18 8. The Prosecutor Improperly Argued That Self-Defense Requires That Giese Reasonably Believed He Was Going to Be Killed . 00 ccc cece eee LO 4, The Prosecutor Improperly Misstated the “Average Person” Standard for Provocation .19 é. The Prosecutor Improperly Urged the Jury to Find Murder if the Jury did not Find imperfect self-defense (ISRT 5120) occ ccc cece cece cece eres 21 lll 6. The Prosecutor Improperly Misstated the Law on Premeditation ... 00... ccc cee ee 2D 7. The Prosecutor Improperly Argued That to Justify the Killing, Giese Would Have Had to Suffer an “Annihilated ... Jaw.” (I8RT 5192) .28 8. The Prosecutor Misstated the Reasonable Doubt Standard of Proof . 00.0 cc ee 2B D. The Prosecutor’s Multiple Misstatements of Law Constituted Prosecutorial Misconduct . . 24 E. Defense Counsel Rendered Ineffective Assistance by Failing to Object to the Prosecutorial Misconduct .24

Docket Entries

2020-11-02
Petition DENIED. Justice Barrett took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
2020-10-15
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/30/2020.
2020-10-12
Waiver of right of respondent California to respond filed.
2020-09-21
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due November 2, 2020)

Attorneys

California
Scott Alan TaryleCalifornia Attorney General's Office, Respondent
Scott Alan TaryleCalifornia Attorney General's Office, Respondent
Charles Chad Giese
Rose Fay ArfaFay Arfa, A Law Corporation, Petitioner
Rose Fay ArfaFay Arfa, A Law Corporation, Petitioner