No. 22-6828
Luis Espinoza v. Tammy Foss, Warden
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: 14th-amendment 6th-amendment confrontation-clause criminal-procedure due-process fourteenth-amendment jury-instructions prosecutorial-misconduct sixth-amendment witness-testimony
Key Terms:
DueProcess FifthAmendment HabeasCorpus
DueProcess FifthAmendment HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference:
2023-03-17
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Were Mr. Espinoza's Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights violated?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED Were Mr. Espinoza’s Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights violated by: (1) the jury’s viewing a witness’s refusal to testify; (2) the prosecutor asking the witness in front of the jury whether he told Mr. Espinoza to kill the victim; and (3) the prosecutor arguing the witness’s refusal to answer questions was evidence of Mr. Espinoza’s guilt? -i
Docket Entries
2023-03-20
Petition DENIED.
2023-03-02
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/17/2023.
2023-03-01
Waiver of right of respondent Foss, Warden to respond filed.
2023-02-16
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due March 24, 2023)
Attorneys
Foss, Warden
Michele Joette Swanson — California Attorney General's Office, Respondent
Michele Joette Swanson — California Attorney General's Office, Respondent
Luis Espinoza
Jonathan Grossman — Sixth District Appellate Prog., Petitioner
Jonathan Grossman — Sixth District Appellate Prog., Petitioner