No. 21-5135
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: closing-argument criminal-procedure defendant-rights demeanor fifth-amendment prosecutorial-misconduct self-incrimination trial-procedure
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity FifthAmendment DueProcess
SocialSecurity FifthAmendment DueProcess
Latest Conference:
2021-09-27
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Did the trial court err by denying Mr. Orr's objection to improper closing argument by the prosecutor?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR BY DENYING MR. ORR’S OBJECTION TO IMPROPER CLOSING ARGUMENT BY THE PROSECUTOR? THIS IMPROPER ARGUMENT CONSISTED OF: 1) BY DELIBERATELY PROVOKING A REACTION FROM MR. ORR IN FRONT OF THE JURY WHICH IS TANTAMOUNT TO FORCING MR. ORR TO TESTIFY, THE STATE VIOLATED MR. ORR’S FIFTH AMENDMENT RIGHT AGAINST SELFINCRIMINATION; AND 2) COMMENTING ON MATTERS ON OUTSIDE THE RECORD INCLUDING MR. ORR’S DEMEANOR. i
Docket Entries
2021-10-04
Petition DENIED.
2021-08-19
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/27/2021.
2021-08-09
Waiver of right of respondents Mr. Jacob Putman, Smith County Criminal District Attorney to respond filed.
2021-07-12
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due August 18, 2021)
Attorneys
Michael Ray Orr
Amy R Blalock — Blalock Law Firm, Petitioner
Amy R Blalock — Blalock Law Firm, Petitioner
Mr. Jacob Putman, Smith County Criminal District Attorney
Michael West — Smith County District Attorney's Office, Respondent
Michael West — Smith County District Attorney's Office, Respondent