No. 21-6472
IFP
Tags: brady-v-maryland brady-violation constitutional-claim due-process exculpatory-evidence postconviction-motion postconviction-relief prosecutorial-misconduct
Key Terms:
DueProcess HabeasCorpus Privacy JusticiabilityDoctri
DueProcess HabeasCorpus Privacy JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference:
2022-01-21
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Can Florida, consistent with Due Process and Brady v. Maryland, condone the prosecution's withholding of material exculpatory evidence beyond the time for a defendant to file his first postconviction motion, and then later hold that the defendant found the evidence 'too late' such that the merits of the constitutional claim cannot be heard?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED 1. Can Florida, consistent with Due Process and Brady v. Maryland, condone the prosecution’s withholding of material exculpatory evidence beyond the time for a defendant to file his first postconviction motion, and then later hold that the defendant found the evidence “too late” such that the merits of the constitutional claim cannot be heard? i
Docket Entries
2022-01-24
Petition DENIED.
2022-01-21
Proof of service petitioner Anthony Mungin filed with respect to reply brief of petitioner Anthony Mungin.
2022-01-19
Reply of petitioner Anthony Mungin filed. (Distributed)
2022-01-06
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/21/2022.
2021-12-22
Brief of respondent Florida in opposition filed.
2021-11-19
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due January 3, 2022)
Attorneys
State of Florida
Carolyn M. Snurkowski — Office of the Attorney General, Respondent
Carolyn M. Snurkowski — Office of the Attorney General, Respondent