No. 20-7641
Brian Hawkins v. Tim Shoop, Warden
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: constitutional-law constitutional-rights credibility-analysis criminal-procedure due-process lovasco-standard pre-indictment-delay prosecutorial-discretion trial-court-error united-states-v-lovasco
Key Terms:
DueProcess
DueProcess
Latest Conference:
2021-05-13
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Has the trial court erred by adding a credibility analysis to an unjustifiable pre-indictment delay test of Due Process : prescribed by United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783 (1977)?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1. Has the trial court erred by adding a credibility analysis to an unjustifiable pre-indictment delay test of Due Process : prescribed by United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783 (1977)? 2. What amount of prejudice must be demonstrated for a Due Process violation, when there is an unjustifiable reason for a preindictment delay? 3. Has the State's post-delay "intentional devise to gain tactical advantage over the accused," which prejudiced him, amount’ to a Due Process violation? ] ee
Docket Entries
2021-05-17
Petition DENIED.
2021-04-22
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/13/2021.
2021-04-19
Waiver of right of respondent Tim Shoop to respond filed.
2021-03-08
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due May 3, 2021)
Attorneys
Brian Hawkins
Brian Hawkins — Petitioner
Tim Shoop
Benjamin Michael Flowers — Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, Respondent