No. 22-5247

Luckens Petit v. Florida

Lower Court: Florida
Docketed: 2022-08-01
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: bond-hearing confrontation-clause constitutional-rights crawford-precedent crawford-v-washington criminal-procedure due-process evidence florida-arthur-bond-hearing sixth-amendment
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
Latest Conference: 2022-09-28
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the Florida Arthur/Bond hearing satisfies the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause requirement as explained in Crawford v. Washington

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED I. WHETHER THE FLORIDA ARTHURYBOND HEARING SATISFIES THE SIXTH AMENDMENT’S CONFRONTATION CLAUSE REQUIREMENT AS , EXPLAINED IN CRAWFORD V. WASHINGTON, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354 | (2004)? | | | 1 State v. Arthur, 390 So.2d 717 (Fla. 1980) i

Docket Entries

2022-10-03
Petition DENIED.
2022-08-11
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/28/2022.
2022-08-03
Waiver of right of respondent Florida to respond filed.
2022-07-04
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due August 31, 2022)

Attorneys

Florida
Celia A. Terenzio — Respondent
Celia A. Terenzio — Respondent
Luckens Petit
Luckens Petit — Petitioner
Luckens Petit — Petitioner