No. 21-6492

Jaime Galvez v. William Muniz, Warden

Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2021-12-02
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
IFP
Tags: criminal-procedure defendant-rights directed-verdict due-process federal-law harmless-error insanity-defense right-to-remain-silent trial-court-error
Key Terms:
DueProcess HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference: 2022-03-04
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether a trial court's error of forcing a criminal defendant to testify before hearing all of the prosecution's evidence requires automatic reversal without resort to harmless error analysis

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Is it clearly established federal law within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) that a trial court’s error, of forcing a criminal defendant to testify before hearing all of the prosecution’s evidence, requires automatic reversal without resort to harmless error analysis? 2. Does the clearly established federal law prohibiting a trial court from directing a verdict against a defendant who has pled not guilty ina criminal case likewise prohibit directing a verdict against the defendant on his plea of not guilty by reason of insanity? i

Docket Entries

2022-03-07
Petition DENIED.
2022-02-17
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/4/2022.
2022-02-16
Reply of petitioner Jaime Galvez filed. (Distributed)
2022-02-01
Brief of respondent William Muniz in opposition filed.
2021-12-21
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including February 2, 2022.
2021-12-20
Motion to extend the time to file a response from January 3, 2022 to February 2, 2022, submitted to The Clerk.
2021-11-29
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due January 3, 2022)

Attorneys

William Muniz
Louis Ward KarlinCalifornia Deparment of Justice, Office of the Att, Respondent
Louis Ward KarlinCalifornia Deparment of Justice, Office of the Att, Respondent