No. 20-8344

Harry Sharod James v. Tom Brickhouse, et al.

Lower Court: Fourth Circuit
Docketed: 2021-06-17
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
IFP
Tags: criminal-procedure due-process equal-protection evidence-admissibility ex-post-facto grand-jury impartial-jury indictment judicial-discretion trial-rights
Key Terms:
Securities
Latest Conference: 2021-09-27
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Does the Due Process Clause require any charging element being in the indictment and presented to a Grand Jury?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 1) Does the Due Yrocess Clause oF the Yourbeenth Amendment} require hoc, any a9 rovering clement bein The Kndickment and presemed 45 a Grand Tury ? 2.Jwas Petitioner deprived oF His Fundamenta| Right oF Equal Protection OF the Law 10 be Tried by an 1 raga tial Dury When tre’ Court Waxed inadmissible evidence to be entered at his trial? 3) Was Petitioner Ceprived of Wis fundamental Right of Cue Prokeetion OF The Law swhen he Was resenterced in Ex st Facto Fashion 2 . U) WAs Petitioner deor . pried OF His Fundamentot Qi w tre Cot too elements From ae indictment 40 Secure ee i) hen For another distint offense? . GBanviction

Docket Entries

2021-10-04
Petition DENIED.
2021-08-05
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/27/2021.
2021-06-08
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due July 19, 2021)

Attorneys

Harry James
Harry Sharod James — Petitioner