No. 20-686
Response Waived
Tags: brady-violation civil-rights constitutional-law discovery-violation double-jeopardy due-process equal-protection mistrial oregon-v-kennedy prosecutorial-misconduct standing statutory-interpretation
Key Terms:
FifthAmendment DueProcess
FifthAmendment DueProcess
Latest Conference:
2021-01-08
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the lower court erred in its interpretation and application of the relevant statutory and constitutional provisions
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
ESTION PRESENTED Are significant discovery and Brady violations by the prosecuting attorney, necessitating the grant of a mistrial, sufficient to invoke the double jeopardy protections against “goading” as set forth in Oregon v. Kennedy? u RELATED CASES State v. Shock, 12CR-17-166, Circuit Court of Cleburne County, Arkansas. Judgment entered June 24, 2019. Shock v. State, CR-19-532, Arkansas Court of Appeals. Judgment entered March 11, 2020. Shock v. State, CR-19-532, Arkansas Supreme Court. Judgment entered June 18, 2020.
Docket Entries
2021-01-11
Petition DENIED.
2020-12-23
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/8/2021.
2020-12-17
Waiver of right of respondent Arkansas to respond filed.
2020-11-12
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 17, 2020)
Attorneys
Arkansas