No. 21-7610
Terry Smith v. Florida, et al.
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: autopsy autopsy-testimony confrontation-clause due-process evidence forensic-evidence hearsay medical-examiner sixth-amendment testimony
Key Terms:
DueProcess Punishment HabeasCorpus
DueProcess Punishment HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference:
2022-05-12
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Does Florida's practice of allowing a medical examiner to testify to an autopsy he/she did not perform violate the Confrontation Clause?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Does Florida’s practice of allowing a medical examiner to testify to an autopsy he/she did not perform violate the Confrontation Clause when the medical examiner bases his opinion on observations of the absent medical examiner? 2. Does Florida’s practice of allowing a medical examiner to testify to an autopsy he/she did not conduct violate the Confrontation Clause when the medical examiner introduces statements from the autopsy report which was not admitted into evidence? ii
Docket Entries
2022-05-16
Petition DENIED.
2022-04-21
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/12/2022.
2022-04-15
Waiver of right of respondent Florida to respond filed.
2022-04-11
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due May 16, 2022)
2022-03-09
Application (21A478) granted by Justice Thomas extending the time to file until April 11, 2022.
2022-02-25
Application (21A478) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from March 10, 2022 to April 11, 2022, submitted to Justice Thomas.
Attorneys
Florida
Carolyn M. Snurkowski — Office of the Attorney General, Respondent
Carolyn M. Snurkowski — Office of the Attorney General, Respondent
Terry Smith
Karin Lee Moore — Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, North, Petitioner
Karin Lee Moore — Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, North, Petitioner