No. 20-7611

Jamar Garrison v. United States

Lower Court: Sixth Circuit
Docketed: 2021-03-30
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
IFP
Tags: brady-rule brady-violation constitutional-rights criminal-procedure discovery-obligations due-process harmless-error rule-16 sixth-circuit
Key Terms:
DueProcess Privacy
Latest Conference: 2021-06-24
Question Presented (AI Summary)

should-a-writ-of-certiorari-issue-to-review-the-brady-and-rule-16-due-process-violations

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. Should a Writ of Certiorari Issue to Review the Brady and Rule 16 Due Process Violations in Defendant’s Case Because the Sixth Circuit Found No Error or Harmless Error in the Government’s Violations of its Discovery Obligations? I. Should a Writ of Certiorari Issue Because the Sixth Circuit Denied Defendant’s Due Process Right to a Fair Trial When it Found No Error in the Government’s Use of False Testimony? II. Should a Writ of Certiorari Issue Because Defendant was Denied His 5" and 6 Amendment Rights to Present a Defense When the Sixth Circuit Affirmed the District Court’s Refusal to Permit Defendant to Cross-Examine Bullington Regarding Specific Instances of Conduct? IV. Should a Writ of Certiorari Issue to Vacate as Rehaif Plain Error Defendant’s Conviction and Sentence as an Armed Career Criminal?

Docket Entries

2021-06-28
Petition DENIED.
2021-06-09
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/24/2021.
2021-05-26
Memorandum of respondent United States filed.
2021-04-26
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including May 28, 2021.
2021-04-23
Motion to extend the time to file a response from April 29, 2021 to May 28, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
2021-03-25
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due April 29, 2021)

Attorneys

Jamar Garrison
Margaret Sind RabenGurewitz & Raben, PLC, Petitioner
Margaret Sind RabenGurewitz & Raben, PLC, Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. PrelogarActing Solicitor General, Respondent
Elizabeth B. PrelogarActing Solicitor General, Respondent