No. 21-8045
Marcellus Overton v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: brady-violation criminal-procedure exculpatory-evidence guilty-plea materiality materiality-standard plea-withdrawal reasonable-defendant rule-11 united-states-v-dominguez-benitez
Latest Conference:
2022-09-28
Question Presented (from Petition)
1. When a defendant seeks to withdraw his or her guilty plea based upon the Government's failure to timely disclose exculpatory evidence, is the "materiality" of withheld evidence judged by an objective standard or a subjective standard? In other words, should the district court consider whether the individual defendant would have proceeded to trial absent the discovery violation, or whether a hypothetical, "reasonable defendant" would have proceeded to trial?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
When a defendant seeks to withdraw his or her guilty plea based upon the Government's failure to timely disclose exculpatory evidence, is the 'materiality' of withheld evidence judged by an objective standard or a subjective standard?
Docket Entries
2022-10-03
Petition DENIED.
2022-06-16
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/28/2022.
2022-06-09
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2022-05-31
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due July 5, 2022)
Attorneys
Marcellus Overton
Matthew Whitney Brissenden — Matthew W. Brissenden, P.C., Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent