No. 21-7055
Eugene Willis v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: brandishing carjacking carjacking-statute criminal-intent due-process-rights firearm ineffective-assistance ineffective-assistance-of-counsel intent judgment-of-acquittal jury-instructions statutory-interpretation
Latest Conference:
2022-02-25
Question Presented (from Petition)
I.
In compliance with Holloway V. United States, 526 U.S. 1 (1991),
is an attorney ineffective for failing to argue before the
jury the Government failed to prove "Willis intended to cause
death or serious bodily harm under 18 U.S.C. § 2119(a)?"
II.
Is an attorney ineffective for failing to properly argue before
the Court that Willis was entitled to a judgment of acguittal
on Count Four because the Firearm was not brandished during
the carjacking?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether an attorney was ineffective for failing to argue the government failed to prove intent under 18 U.S.C. § 2119(a)
Docket Entries
2022-02-28
Petition DENIED.
2022-02-10
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/25/2022.
2022-02-08
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2022-01-20
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due March 7, 2022)
Attorneys
Eugene Willis
Eugene Willis — Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent