No. 21-623

Anthony Penton v. A. Malfi, Warden

Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2021-10-28
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Amici (1)Response Waived
Tags: brady-evidence brady-v-maryland criminal-procedure due-process fifth-amendment prior-convictions prosecutorial-misconduct sentencing-enhancement sixth-amendment suppressed-evidence
Key Terms:
FifthAmendment HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference: 2021-12-03
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether evidence covered by Brady v. Maryland is considered suppressed under the Fifth Amendment regardless of the defendant's knowledge

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether evidence covered by Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and withheld by prosecutors is considered suppressed under the Fifth Amendment regardless of whether the defendant already knew or should have known of the substance of the evidence. 2. Whether the Sixth Amendment permits judges to enhance a prison sentence based on the nature of a defendant’s prior convictions that were not found by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

Docket Entries

2021-12-06
Petition DENIED.
2021-11-17
Brief amici curiae of Criminal Law Professors filed. (Distributed)
2021-11-16
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/3/2021.
2021-11-10
Waiver of right of respondent A. Malfi, Warden to respond filed.
2021-11-03
Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, Anthony Penton
2021-10-25
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 29, 2021)

Attorneys

A. Malfi, Warden
Christopher P. BeesleyOffice of the Atty. Gen. of the State of CA, Respondent
Christopher P. BeesleyOffice of the Atty. Gen. of the State of CA, Respondent
Anthony Penton
Harrison J. Frahn IVSimpson Thacher & Bartlett, LLP, Petitioner
Harrison J. Frahn IVSimpson Thacher & Bartlett, LLP, Petitioner
Criminal Law Professors
James Lewis BrochinSteptoe & Johnson LLP, Amicus
James Lewis BrochinSteptoe & Johnson LLP, Amicus