No. 22-6513

Jeremy Dale Bartram v. West Virginia

Lower Court: West Virginia
Docketed: 2023-01-10
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: criminal-procedure due-process evidence evidence-rule fair-trial presumption-of-innocence prosecutorial-discretion rule-404(b) uncharged-misconduct
Key Terms:
Environmental SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
Latest Conference: 2023-02-17
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Does the prosecution's use of 'uncharged misconduct' under Rule 404(b) strip a criminal defendant of the presumption of innocence?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED QUESTION 1. Does the prosecution’s use of ‘uncharged misconduct’ under Rule 404(b) of the West Virginia Rules of Evidence strip a criminal defendant of the presumption of innocence whereby denying him or her the right to a fair trial?

Docket Entries

2023-02-21
Petition DENIED.
2023-01-26
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/17/2023.
2023-01-19
Waiver of right of respondent West Virginia to respond filed.
Main DocumentMain Document
2022-12-30
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due February 9, 2023)
Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma PauperisPetitionAppendixCertificate of Word CountProof of ServiceMotion for Leave to Proceed in Forma PauperisPetitionAppendix

Attorneys

Jeremy Dale Bartram
Jeremy Dale Bartram — Petitioner
Jeremy Dale Bartram — Petitioner
West Virginia
Lindsay Sara See — Office of the West Virginia Attorney General, Respondent
Lindsay Sara See — Office of the West Virginia Attorney General, Respondent