No. 23-5656

Stephen M. Cooke, Jr. v. Allen Gang, Warden, et al.

Lower Court: Fourth Circuit
Docketed: 2023-09-27
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: confrontation-clause criminal-procedure due-process evidence fourteenth-amendment involuntary-statements post-indictment-statements right-to-counsel sixth-amendment undercover-agent
Key Terms:
DueProcess HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference: 2023-10-27
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Was Cooke's Sixth Amendment right to counsel violated?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

Questions Presented 1, Was Cooke's Sixth Amendment right to counsel violated when the state introduced at trial Cooke’s post-indictment statements and actions that were initiated and recorded by the state’s undercover agent? ; 2. Was Cooke’s Fourteenth Amendment right to due process violated when the state introduced at trial Cooke’s involuntary statements and actions that resulted from threats and intimidation placed upon Cooke by the state’s agent? 3. Was Cooke’s Fourteenth Amendment right to due process violated when the state introduced at his trial material evidence that was irreconcilably contradictory to material evidence the state introduced at his co-defendant’s trial nine months earlier to convict the co-defendant of the same murder? ° l

Docket Entries

2023-10-30
Petition DENIED.
2023-10-05
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/27/2023.
2023-10-02
Waiver of right of respondent Gang, Warden, et al. to respond filed.
2023-09-06
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due October 27, 2023)

Attorneys

Gang, Warden, et al.
Jeremy Hugh WelterOffice of the Attorney General of Maryland, Respondent
Stephen M. Cooke
Stephen M. Cooke Jr. — Petitioner