No. 21-6688
Freddie McNeill, Jr. v. Tim Shoop, Warden
IFP
Tags: brady-claim brady-doctrine brady-v-maryland due-process evidence-suppression judicial-review materiality-standard prejudice prosecutorial-disclosure witness-credibility witness-reliability
Key Terms:
DueProcess HabeasCorpus
DueProcess HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference:
2022-03-18
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether a reviewing court considering a claim under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), must assess the reliability and credibility of the witnesses who testified at trial in determining if prejudice under Brady has been established
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED Whether a reviewing court considering a claim under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), must assess the reliability and credibility of the witnesses who testified at trial in determining if prejudice under Brady has been established. i
Docket Entries
2022-03-21
Petition DENIED.
2022-03-03
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/18/2022.
2022-02-22
Reply of petitioner Freddie McNeill filed.
2022-02-11
Brief of respondent Tim Shoop, Warden in opposition filed.
2021-12-30
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including February 22, 2022.
2021-12-29
Motion to extend the time to file a response from January 20, 2022 to February 22, 2022, submitted to The Clerk.
2021-12-17
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due January 20, 2022)
Attorneys
Freddie McNeill
Tim Shoop, Warden
Benjamin Michael Flowers — Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, Respondent