No. 24-5715
Lashaun Casey v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: criminal-procedure ineffective-assistance law-enforcement-questioning safe-harbor statement-suppression strickland-standard
Key Terms:
CriminalProcedure HabeasCorpus
CriminalProcedure HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference:
2024-11-08
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by not moving to suppress statements made after the expiration of the 'safe harbor' under 18 U.S.C. § 3501(c)
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW This petition presents the following question: Whether, under the framework set out in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by not moving to suppress statements made after the expiration of the ‘safe harbor' recognized at 18 U.S.C. § 3501(c), where some of those statements were in response to questions posed by law enforcement and some were in response to questions by non-law enforcement? i
Docket Entries
2024-11-12
Petition DENIED.
2024-10-24
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/8/2024.
2024-10-17
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2024-10-01
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due November 6, 2024)
Attorneys
Lashaun Casey
Virginia Guadalupe Villa — Law Office of Virginia G. Villa, Petitioner
Virginia Guadalupe Villa — Law Office of Virginia G. Villa, Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent