No. 22-5867
Monica McCarrick v. Janelle Espinoza, Warden
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: constitutional-rights criminal-procedure due-process evidence first-degree-murder meaningful-defense mental-health paranoid-delusions premeditation trial-court-evidence
Key Terms:
DueProcess HabeasCorpus JusticiabilityDoctri
DueProcess HabeasCorpus JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference:
2022-11-10
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Does an objectively unreasonable violation of the Constitutional right to present a meaningful defense occur when a trial court prevents a defendant from presenting evidence supporting her sole defense to first degree murder?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED ‘1. Does an objectively unreasonable violation of the Constitutional right to present a meaningful defense occur when a trial court prevents a defendant from presenting evidence supporting her sole defense to first degree murder — . that she was unable to premeditate and deliberate because she suffered from paranoid delusions (not hallucinations)? . | | , | | ii ,
Docket Entries
2022-11-14
Petition DENIED
2022-11-14
Petition DENIED.
2022-10-26
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/10/2022.
2022-10-20
Waiver of right of respondent Espinoza, Warden to respond filed.
2022-09-12
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due November 17, 2022)
Attorneys
Espinoza, Warden
Jill M. Thayer — California Attorney General's Office, Respondent
Jill M. Thayer — California Attorney General's Office, Respondent