No. 22-519

Shawn Rogers Malloy v. Pennsylvania

Lower Court: Pennsylvania
Docketed: 2022-12-05
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Tags: attorney-client-privilege brady-v-maryland brady-violation constitutional-remedy due-process prosecutorial-misconduct right-to-counsel sixth-amendment united-states-v-nobles
Key Terms:
DueProcess Privacy
Latest Conference: 2023-04-28
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Does the prosecution's retention of, failure to quarantine, and failure to disclose possession of a criminal defendant's legal strategy notes, prepared with his attorney, violate the defendant's due process rights and right to counsel?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Does the prosecution’s retention of, failure to quarantine, and failure to disclose possession of a criminal defendant’s legal strategy notes, prepared with his attorney, violate the defendant’s due process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, including as stated in Brady v. Maryland and California v. Trombetta? 2. Does the prosecution’s retention of, failure to quarantine, and failure to disclose possession of a criminal defendant’s legal strategy notes, prepared with his attorney, violate the defendant’s right to counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution, as it is inextricably linked to the protection of attorney-client work product, including as stated in United States v. Nobles? 3. Does the Pennsylvania trial court’s and appellate courts’ use of a false-in-one, false-in-all standard jury instruction as the sole remedy for prosecutorial misconduct violate the Morrison standard for tailoring remedies in proportion to the constitutional violation? 4. Does the Pennsylvania trial court’s and appellate courts’ placement of the burden of proof on the criminal defendant related to the prejudice the prosecution’s retention of, failure to quarantine and failure to disclose possession of the defendant’s legal strategy notes prepared with his attorney violate Berger and its progeny? u LIST OF PROCEEDINGS DIRECTLY RELATED TO THIS MATTER * Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Shawn Rogers Malloy, (consolidated with prior to trial), Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas. Judgment entered November 7, 2019. * Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Shawn Rogers Malloy, (consolidated with prior to trial), Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas. Judgment entered November 7, 2019. * Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Shawn Rogers Malloy, 1244 EDA 2020 (consolidated, sua sponte, with 1287 EDA 2020), Pennsylvania Superior Court. Judgment entered October 26, 2021. * Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Shawn Rogers Malloy, 1287 EDA 2020 (consolidated, sua sponte, with 1244 EDA 2020), Pennsylvania Superior Court. Judgment entered October 26, 2021. * Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Shawn Rogers Malloy, 45 MAL 2022, Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Judgment entered July 6, 2022. * Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Shawn Rogers Malloy, 46 MAL 2022, Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Judgment entered July 6, 2022.

Docket Entries

2023-05-01
Petition DENIED.
2023-04-12
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/28/2023.
2023-03-06
Brief of respondent Pennsylvania in opposition filed.
2023-01-05
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including March 6, 2023.
2023-01-03
Motion to extend the time to file a response from January 4, 2023 to March 6, 2023, submitted to The Clerk.
2022-10-04
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due January 4, 2023)

Attorneys

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Robert M FalinMontgomery County District Attorney's Office, Respondent
Marissa Ann BoothMontgomery County District Attorney's Office, Respondent
Shawn Rogers Malloy
Nathan John SchadlerConway Schadler, LLC, Petitioner