No. 21-8085
Frank Jarvis Atwood v. Arizona
IFP
Tags: brady-v-maryland brady-violation constitutional-rights due-process exculpatory-evidence material-evidence material-exculpatory-evidence materiality-analysis prosecutorial-misconduct third-party-culpability
Key Terms:
DueProcess HabeasCorpus
DueProcess HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference:
N/A
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Did the State withhold material exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Did the State withhold material exculpatory evidence of a tip received by law enforcement independently linking a known third-party suspect to the case, in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)? 2. In conducting a materiality analysis under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), in a case where the suppressed evidence concerns a third-party culpability defense that was presented at trial, must courts evaluate the case in light of all of the evidence as a whole, or may it treat any further evidence in support of a defense already presented as cumulative?
Docket Entries
2022-06-08
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed.
2022-06-08
Application (21A801) for a stay of execution of sentence of death, submitted to Justice Kagan.
2022-06-08
Application (21A801) referred to the Court.
2022-06-08
Petition DENIED.
2022-06-08
Application (21A801) for stay of execution of sentence of death presented to Justice Kagan and by her referred to the Court is denied.
2022-06-08
Brief of respondent State of Arizona in opposition filed.
2022-06-08
Response to application from respondent State of Arizona filed.
2022-06-08
Reply of petitioner Frank Atwood filed.
2022-06-08
Reply of applicant Frank Atwood filed.
Attorneys
Frank Atwood
Amy Pickering Knight — Knight Law Firm, PC, Petitioner
State of Arizona
Jeffrey Lee Sparks — Arizona Attorney General, Respondent