No. 22-5909
Timmy Doucet v. Tim Hooper, Warden
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: brady-material criminal-procedure due-process expert-testimony fourteenth-amendment ineffective-assistance ineffective-assistance-of-counsel jackson-v-virginia reasonable-doubt sixth-amendment
Key Terms:
DueProcess HabeasCorpus
DueProcess HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference:
2022-12-02
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Insufficient evidence to convict beyond reasonable doubt
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED 1. Reasonable jurists would determine that the evidence presented during trial was insufficient to convict Doucet of Aggravated Rape beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson y. Virginia; Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. 2. Reasonable jurists could conclude that Mr. Doucet was deprived of effective assistance of counsd when: (A) Trial counsel failed to obtain Medical Expert to rebut State's Expert testimony; (B) Trial counsel failed to investigate Brady material; and, (C) Trial counsel failed to interview witnesses.
Docket Entries
2022-12-05
Petition DENIED.
2022-11-16
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/2/2022.
2022-11-15
Waiver of right of respondent Tim Hooper to respond filed.
2022-10-17
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due November 25, 2022)
Attorneys
Tim Hooper
Juliet L. Clark — Assistant District Attorney, Respondent
Juliet L. Clark — Assistant District Attorney, Respondent