No. 20-8129

Joseph Miller v. United States

Lower Court: Seventh Circuit
Docketed: 2021-05-25
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: brady-v-maryland brady-violation certificate-of-appealability constitutional-right constitutional-rights direct-appeal evidentiary-hearing fifth-amendment fourth-amendment ineffective-assistance-of-counsel slack-v-mcdaniel
Latest Conference: 2021-06-24
Question Presented (from Petition)

I.
As a matter of first impression in this court, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 10(C), does
an attorney 's failure to advise his client of the adverse ramifications of raising any claims of IAC
on direct appeal constitute the substantial denial of a constitutional right, debatable among jurist
of reasons, as contemplated by this court 's decision in Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000),
particularly when the district court failed to conduct an evidentiary hearing to resolve the issue,
where petitioner had material evidence showing that his attorney never consulted with him, in
. that regard?

II.
Does the Seventh Circuit 's denial of Miller 's request for a CO A, grounded in Miller 's
contentions that the prosecution failed to timely disclose its'Use of fabricated evidence hi search
and arrest warrants, constitute an issue debatable among jurist of reason, pursuant to Slack v,
McDaniels , the substantial denial of a constitutional right, and most importantly, does this
decision conflict with this court 's decision in Brady v. Maryland , 373 US, 83, so as to warrant
the grant of certiorari by this court under Supreme Court Rule 10(C)?

III.
Does the Seventh circuit 's denial of Miller 's request for a Certificate of Appealability on
two separate pre-trial, 4th and 5th Amendment, IAC issues —one citing Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S.
590 (1975) and the other, Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) —constitute decisions
debatable among jurist of reason, pursuant to Slack v. McDaniel, and moreover, substantially
conflict with this court 's decisions in Kimmelman v. Morrision, All U.S. 365 (1986), so as to
warrant the grant of certiorari by this court under Supreme Court Rule 10(c), particularly when
the information utilized in the search and arrest warrants were derived from undisclosed,
fabricated information and evidence in violation of Bradyl

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether an attorney's failure to advise a client of the adverse ramifications of raising certain claims on direct appeal constitutes a substantial denial of a constitutional right

Docket Entries

2021-06-28
Petition DENIED.
2021-06-09
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/24/2021.
2021-06-01
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2021-04-13
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due June 24, 2021)

Attorneys

Joseph Miller
Joseph Miller — Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. PrelogarActing Solicitor General, Respondent