No. 21-7409
Jory Russell Strizich v. Montana
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: criminal-defense due-process evidentiary-ruling evidentiary-rulings flight-evidence fourteenth-amendment holmes-precedent holmes-v-south-carolina sixth-amendment
Key Terms:
Privacy
Privacy
Latest Conference:
2022-04-14
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment right to defend in a criminal case can be denied on unique state evidentiary rulings?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION(S) PRESENTED Whether the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment right to defend in a criminal case can be denied on unique state evidentiary rulings? Stated another way, does the state court's evidentiary ruling on ; admissibility of flight evidence deny the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment right to defend in a criminal case under Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 (2006)? | ii./
Docket Entries
2022-04-18
Petition DENIED.
2022-03-24
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/14/2022.
2022-03-22
Waiver of right of respondent State of Montana to respond filed.
2022-02-28
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due April 18, 2022)
Attorneys
State of Montana
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent