No. 24-1127

Thomas E. Clardy v. Kenneth Nelsen, Warden

Lower Court: Sixth Circuit
Docketed: 2025-05-02
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response Waived
Tags: criminal-procedure due-process expert-testimony eyewitness-identification ineffective-assistance strickland-standard
Key Terms:
HabeasCorpus Punishment JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2025-05-29
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Does a criminal defense attorney perform deficiently under Strickland v. Washington when failing to present expert testimony about the reliability problems of eyewitness identifications

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

In a case that hinges primarily on eyewitness identification, does a criminal defense attorney perform deficiently under Strickland v. Washington , 466 U.S. 668 (1984), when the attorney fails to present expert testimony about the well-documented reliability problems of eyewitness identifications , or neglects even to request funding for such testimony from the court ?

Docket Entries

2025-06-02
Petition DENIED.
2025-05-13
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/29/2025.
2025-05-05
Waiver of right of respondent Nelsen, Warden to respond filed.
Main DocumentMain Document
2025-04-28
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due June 2, 2025)
PetitionCertificate of Word CountProof of ServicePetitionCertificate of Word CountProof of Service

Attorneys

Nelsen, Warden
John Henry Bledsoe III — Office of Tennessee Attorney General, Respondent
Thomas Clardy
Angela Lee Bergman — Bass, Berry & Sims, Petitioner