No. 20-6338

James H. Smith v. Brian Cook, Warden

Lower Court: Sixth Circuit
Docketed: 2020-11-16
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: aedpa-deference confrontation-clause constitutional-rights criminal-charges deficient-performance federal-claim ineffective-assistance-of-counsel state-court-misconstrue trial-court
Key Terms:
HabeasCorpus JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2021-01-08
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Can an attorney demonstrate deficient performance in representing a client while also facing serious criminal charges in the same court

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1). Can an attorney demonstrate deficient performance in representing a client while also facing serious criminal charges in the same court. 2). Should a trial court ensure that a defendant understands his confrontation clauses rights before admitting stipulation that violate those rights. 3). Does this Court's decision in Johnson v. Williams, 568 U.S. 289 (2013) require AEDPA deference where the state court misconstrue the petitioner's argument'and did not reach the "core" of petitioner's federal claim. iii TABLE OF CONTENT : CONTENT PAGE(S) QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW.2..

Docket Entries

2021-01-11
Petition DENIED.
2020-12-17
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/8/2021.
2020-12-09
Waiver of right of respondent Brian Cook to respond filed.
2020-11-06
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due December 16, 2020)

Attorneys

Brian Cook
Benjamin Michael FlowersOhio Attorney General Dave Yost, Respondent
Benjamin Michael FlowersOhio Attorney General Dave Yost, Respondent
James H. Smith
James H. Smith — Petitioner
James H. Smith — Petitioner