No. 22-5900
IFP
Tags: brady-disclosure brady-v-maryland constitutional-rights criminal-procedure due-process exculpatory-evidence guilty-plea impeachment-evidence united-states-v-ruiz
Latest Conference:
2023-02-17
Question Presented (from Petition)
Whether there is a fundamental difference between material exculpatory and impeachment evidence when a guilty plea is involved, and does due process require that a defendant be entitled to protections under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), when it comes to disclosing exculpatory evidence when it would impact a defendant's decision to plead guilty?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether there is a fundamental difference between material exculpatory and impeachment evidence when a guilty plea is involved, and does due process require that a defendant be entitled to protections under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), when it comes to disclosing exculpatory evidence when it would impact a defendant's decision to plead guilty?
Docket Entries
2023-02-21
Petition DENIED.
2023-01-26
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/17/2023.
2023-01-26
Reply of petitioner Robert Bethel filed. (Distributed)
2023-01-06
Brief of respondent Ohio in opposition filed.
2022-11-07
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including January 9, 2023.
2022-11-04
Motion to extend the time to file a response from November 25, 2022 to January 9, 2023, submitted to The Clerk.
2022-10-21
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due November 25, 2022)
2022-07-19
Application (22A39) granted by Justice Kavanaugh extending the time to file until October 21, 2022.
2022-07-14
Application (22A39) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from August 22, 2022 to October 21, 2022, submitted to Justice Kavanaugh.
Attorneys
Robert Bethel
Rachel Troutman — Ohio Public Defender, Petitioner
State of Ohio
Seth Luxon Gilbert — Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney, Respondent