No. 20-8199
Isiah Lamonte Brown v. California
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: constitutional-remedy counsel-ineffectiveness counsel-violation criminal-procedure fundamental-autonomy prejudice prejudice-analysis right-to-testify standard-of-review waiver waiver-standard
Key Terms:
DueProcess HabeasCorpus Privacy JusticiabilityDoctri
DueProcess HabeasCorpus Privacy JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference:
2021-09-27
Question Presented (AI Summary)
What standard of prejudice must be satisfied to reverse a conviction due to counsel's violation of the defendant's right to testify?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1. What standard of prejudice, if any, must be satisfied to reverse a conviction because trial counsel violated the defendant’s fundamental autonomous right to testify? 2. Must waiver of the right to testify be clearly established as knowing and voluntary? If so, how might such waiver be established, and who bears that burden? i
Docket Entries
2021-10-04
Petition DENIED.
2021-06-24
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/27/2021.
2021-06-18
Waiver of right of respondent California to respond filed.
2021-05-28
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due July 6, 2021)
Attorneys
Brown
Elizabeth Garfinkle — Law Offices of Elizabeth Garfinkle, Petitioner
California
Rene Antonio Chacon — CA Deptartment of Justice, Respondent