No. 21-8107

Keith Undray Ford v. Suzanne M. Peery, Warden

Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2022-06-10
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: adjudication criminal-procedure due-process federal-courts federal-statute habeas-corpus legal-interpretation presumption-of-innocence presumption-of-law state-court state-courts
Key Terms:
DueProcess HabeasCorpus Privacy
Latest Conference: 2022-09-28
Question Presented (AI Summary)

When an issue before a state court is resolved by an assumption of fact, as opposed to a factual finding, has the issue before the state court been 'adjudicated on the merits' within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. §2254?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

Questions Presented 1. | When an issue before a state court is resolved by an assumption of fact, as opposed to a factual finding, has the issue before the state court been “adjudicated on the merits” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. §2254? 2. Is it clearly established by Federal law, as determined by this Court, that the presumption of innocence stays with a defendant in a criminal case throughout the trial process until a guilty verdict is returned? 1 Volume I

Docket Entries

2022-10-03
Petition DENIED.
2022-06-30
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/28/2022.
2022-06-27
Waiver of right of respondent Suzanne Peery, Warden to respond filed.
2021-11-16
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due July 11, 2022)

Attorneys

Keith Undray Ford
Barry L. MorrisAttorney at Law, Petitioner
Suzanne Peery, Warden
Jill M. ThayerCalifornia Attorney General's Office, Respondent