No. 22-6437
Alan Singleton v. Tom Watson, Warden
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: burden-of-proof confrontation-clause criminal-procedure due-process fair-trial hearsay hearsay-testimony ineffective-assistance right-to-counsel
Key Terms:
DueProcess
DueProcess
Latest Conference:
2023-02-17
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Did counsel provide ineffective assistance?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Did counsel provide ineffective assistance? 2. Did the prosecution’s use of the word “uncontroverted” place the burden of proof on the defendant, thereby denying him his right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty? 3. Should the social worker’s entire testimony have been denied as hearsay? Was petitioner denied his right to confront witnesses and denied a fair trial? 4. Did the admission of the child's hearsay statements violate confrontation clause rights? 5. Did the judge improperly consult case law when finding defendant guilty? Use of case law is biased towards guilt, thereby denying defendant a fair trial. 7
Docket Entries
2023-02-21
Petition DENIED.
2023-01-12
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/17/2023.
2023-01-10
Waiver of right of respondent Tom Watson to respond filed.
2022-10-24
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due January 30, 2023)
Attorneys
Alan Singleton
Alan Singleton — Petitioner
Tom Watson
Benjamin Michael Flowers — Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, Respondent