No. 21-6439

John Joseph Rushinsky, Jr. v. David Shinn, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation and Reentry, et al.

Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2021-11-30
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: burden-of-proof constitutional-rights criminal-law criminal-procedure due-process habeas-corpus ineffective-assistance-counsel ineffective-assistance-of-counsel prejudice strickland-standard
Key Terms:
DueProcess HabeasCorpus CriminalProcedure JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2022-01-14
Question Presented (AI Summary)

May the state, consistent with Due Process, criminalize innocent behavior?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED I. 1. May the state, consistent with Due Process, sweepingly criminalize a broad range of conduct embracing both innocent and culpable behavior and assign to defendant the burden of proving innocence. 2. Is the state court’s failure to conduct the necessary inquiry into Petitioner’s IAC claim under “clearly established federal law” so as to merit double deference? 3. Does a successful result in a later case using the same forfeited argument establish “prejudice” under Strickland?

Docket Entries

2022-01-18
Petition DENIED.
2021-12-30
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/14/2022.
2021-12-14
Waiver of right of respondent David Shinn to respond filed.
Main Document
2021-11-22
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due December 30, 2021)
Petition

Attorneys

David Shinn
Eric Knobloch — Office of the Arizona Attorney General, Respondent
John Joseph Rushinsky
Atmore L Baggot — Petitioner