No. 20-7080

Jimmy Lloyd Alexander v. California

Lower Court: California
Docketed: 2021-02-08
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: civil-rights constitutional-rights criminal-procedure due-process evidence evidence-seizure fair-trial judicial-bias prosecutorial-misconduct
Key Terms:
Securities
Latest Conference: 2021-03-19
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the petitioner's constitutional rights were violated due to prosecutorial misconduct, judicial bias, and improper admission of evidence

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

No question identified. : | 9 : . Cuserioubditereunen _‘Tupub olla. | WITHOUT AMY WEAPOVS, How DID PET TIOWEe. CaneUT Ar Chime | ale The LunGes BUUMGS 1M COW ELUCT WIth SETTLED LAW —_ , WAT RE buile His CouRT Te $2 T-ASE PETLLIMMEES oS aailetion © Arty IQOES THE PETITIONER DESERWE At His mir sft. MEARYLG AAO A PUBUCAPOLOEY ERM THE PAST: 4 LIAS REQWKED HOR THE OVE STRIKE KIDWAPEMG ALLEGATIOAS) / Ss THE CECI SU FEIC( EMT EMOUG 10 PRWE. THAT JAVME DO. ‘s MLE MEAL | SUBTAWTIALLY. LLL. REBSED. . lu. (ER THE STATE Adli> FERER AL CONSTITUTIONS | BECAUSE | TV SERVES WO L1(GAT (mae. PEW OLOGICAL GreAt.,/§ | 78 WEARS TO LIFE. CRVEL An/I>? UNUSUAL PUNISH rc ? Oi MAL Suite. ABUSE 1S Powe BY AbiDwills Tie 2 WieTiMs TésTiauy TO GO UN COKRETER, Aalt>s oT SHE _LLER OW THE DEFEVPOANT BECAUE SHE WAS OWL LROVE THAT. SHE DID 1M FACT LIE BBECAUSE. Se D0 AT WANT T0 BE_ARLESTTED. FOR MAM A PASE I c VES THE PEDPLE BE WAT. 1 OR DE. a ueT 12 Fv JAE DOE (ALEC ITI) WOT” : REDIBLE JT Weve HAVE TO REJECT THE IRREL~ EVAVT EXPERT TEST Iatonly OF OR ado MECHAMC? _ — _6) DID THe That Cover Covducl A HEAR MG Ta sOEVTIEL All, EVALUATE WHETHER AW -EXTPAVE OS (VFL EVE D RESIS LTE | i _Jueoe eins f | 2 LF THE OF FEW DAT ESTABLISHES PREJYDILE AS A RESY LT OF _&§) Dio fb atiary, E1THe. BECIRE OR DUM THE TRIAL, PRESVOIE. | A2ROES AW VIOLATE THE DEFEMDANTS RIGHT TO Ad [PARTIAL Sve 7 | YD WAS Jy pss POTEVTIMLY EXQOSEO TO PRES) DIAL pvauieeTe q _ THAT THE CovkT SHOVLEVE mabe AA lv QUIRY TO DETER rales THE. EISTEME OF ACTUAL Ex pasiiete © | | LO) SHoULD THE JUDGE HAVE. SEQUESTERED THE JURY Als PRIVY: een CAUTIR MALY AMSTRUCTIOWS TO SAFE GUARIN AGA AST PRESLACE 2 i i WW) O10 THE TRIAL Ji ble HAVE A PERSIE BIAS OR. PREI OCE THAT , 1) GET Aresoeen Hoi Dil THE TRIAL Wu0bE Hate. PERSO At . KilovtlehGt 0” DISPVTED Eu. DeEnTIARY FACTS, AMD WAS ITO BECAUSE THE ALLEGED VICTIMS BROTHER 18 A LAWYER Mimsele| _13) DID Tite PéoiecuTOR “PLOEUTE wWiTHt EARALESTHESS. aw, LIGD2!, O 1él HE | USE ImekoPER METHODS CALCULATED TO PRODUCE A wWROMGrFUL ConleTIoWd ? Fihat £46 DEB. DE FEaALDAVTS RIGHTS BY ALLOU) A/G THEATESTIMOMY TOGO VU CORRECTED OR AYO VOT BEEK LUDEI>e __kf ly war THe_DvA EWbedte EXCLUDED, AUD Titt. Abt.bulé by, EVE AFTER TL COVRTS LEAMCVED | WAT THE Od -SfELM DSA UAS COMTAMUMATED Duele THe Exanl Aad The 2k awe LOU | 6 ERA ONEEEREAT VUE COMTRIBUTERS TIFT Le [FE _T1 ~ COURTS WlOULI> HAVE EK CLUE THE VICTIMS = TESTIMONY 4ETEL SME AOHUTIED TO bLVlil To LA: Z DUO THE SAY HAVE | G, VERIICT AORE. FAUORA bli TO THE DEF EAM ATE (F OES -A OF THE FRO FEEREO EVIDEMCE OR TESTIMOWMY , ACTUALLY PROVE THAT Thé OELEM DAA WAS Lal FACT ___ OT” CrULTY OF THE. ALLUSE CAMES © 12, lo DTA RTS S140 1k FLAVOR TOW AR Titi ILE GE _ WTI BECAUSE THE Alle CIB VICTIAIS BROTHER $A LAUER. AMD Adal ASSOCIATE THAT WORMS Lal THE 5 AALE PRACTICA AMI 1A The SBE. COLMTY AS THE . UOC, THE PRISE CUTIR, AVD THE PUBLIC DEC FEDER , | RIEO THE DE FEAAMTS (ASE C ig | ¢ TRIAL COURTS KWaed BR=THAT IT WAS COmLiCTIde : —S _ CHE. PETITNMER. Bal THE BASIS OF EVIDEALE SEIZES WITHOUT __A_WARRAWT OW THE BASIS OBTHE “WELL TABLE DISCOVERY, __ DOCTRINE, OF SITE. THE LACK OF AMO Gods |AVESTIGATION ©: 20) 18 iT IMpROpE CONDUTT Aaly PROB ELUTORIAL A111 DAL DUCE WHA! | LA THIS CASE THE TRIAL Ju nGe ALLOWED TINE PROS cuOh. TO EXPRESS PERS IW AL O° tanlS ABDUT DE LEAOANTS Gut An CREOURITY AND AAD E POTE ALTIALLY Us) FAlle AL WO LRWPER REMARKS ABOUT | THE DEFEMWAUT, THE bébé as Coulstl, Ad) THE DELERSE WHITES | __Duvtiae Thal © 21) DID THe PbO 562 VOR Conall PRIELUTR lat (MS Dal DUCT BY __ at pRE spall OL MOVES ARDIAZM ATTEES. RE baie PERSO Altri L _ENPEREMCE A EXPERTARVOWLEDOE F . 22) WAS Tite PROSECUTOR Ld VIOLATION! FOR ConmmenTivé os! TH | __DEFEWDAVTS PREVIOUS Con ViCTIOWS © fl 33) ARE THE TRIAL. CoWRTS LA WOLBTIOW Qt FOR IDL ATG __ Reset PETITIOWNEES DUE PROCES RIGHTS BY ALLoU > THE PROSECUTOR. TR _VOULIE Oe THE CREM BILITY OF THE : GOR LEAT VT ALES. USA REE LEVANT: EM PERIK TEST | LL OAE | vF, Aue Ativan TO MS Ou PERSIA AL. ATEGRI we

Docket Entries

2021-03-22
Petition DENIED.
2021-03-04
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/19/2021.
2021-03-02
Waiver of right of respondent California to respond filed.
2020-10-06
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due March 10, 2021)

Attorneys

California
Seth Kasel SchalitAttorney General's Office, Respondent
Seth Kasel SchalitAttorney General's Office, Respondent
Jimmy Lloyd Alexander
Jimmy Lloyd Alexander — Petitioner
Jimmy Lloyd Alexander — Petitioner