No. 21-6793

Markette Tillman v. United States

Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2022-01-10
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: appeals-court attorney-dismissal attorney-firing clear-error constitutional-rights interlocutory interlocutory-appeal sixth-amendment speedy-trial
Key Terms:
HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference: 2022-02-18
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Where the appeals court previously found that it was clear error to fire a defendant's attorney in an interlocutory context, does the Sixth Amendment compel the court to find clear error on the defendant's subsequent appeal?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Where the appeals court previously found that it was clear error to fire a defendant’s attorney in an interlocutory context, does the Sixth Amendment compel the court to find clear error on the defendant’s subsequent appeal? 2. Where a defendant has to wait six years to go to trial due in substantial part to the district court’s erroneous firing of his attorney, is his Speedy Trial right violated under the Sixth Amendment?

Docket Entries

2022-02-22
Petition DENIED.
2022-01-20
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/18/2022.
2022-01-12
Waiver of right of respondent United States of America to respond filed.
2021-12-30
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due February 9, 2022)

Attorneys

Markette Tillman
Jim Hoffman — Petitioner
Jim Hoffman — Petitioner
United States of America
Elizabeth B. PrelogarSolicitor General, Respondent
Elizabeth B. PrelogarSolicitor General, Respondent