No. 24-937

Miguel Adan Cayetano v. Texas

Lower Court: Texas
Docketed: 2025-03-03
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Tags: confrontation-clause constitutional-violations due-process fraud-on-court prosecutorial-misconduct supreme-court-authority
Key Terms:
DueProcess FourthAmendment FifthAmendment
Latest Conference: 2025-05-02
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Should the United States Supreme Court use its inherent authority to act sua sponte and vacate the prior decisions of the lower courts due to alleged prosecutorial fraud?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

1. Since the District Attorney/State orchestrated fraud with (4) four witne sses assuring the Elements of the Crime were buttressed so that the jury would not find negation of proof required to find the Petition er/Defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, this should be considered Fraud on the Court. Should the United States Supreme Court use its inherent authority to act sua sponte and vacate the prior decisions of the lower courts? 2. Did the First Court of Appeals violate the Peti tioner’s Right to a Fair Trial under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment and the Right of Confrontation under the 6th Amendment by omitting analysis under Chapman v. California , 386 U.S. 18 (1967), plain error under United States v. Olano , 507 U.S. 725 (1993), Napue v. Illinois , 360 U.S. 264 (1959) and Giglio v. United States , 405 U.S. 150, (1972), when informed that the District Attorney and SANE Nurse colluded to provide Undiscoverable Fraudulent Medical Evidence and other Fraudulent Statements to the jury? 3. Did the First Court of Appeals violate the United States Constitution’s Supremacy Clause of Article VI, Section 2, by misinterpreting Texas State Precedent regarding Fraudulent Prosecutorial Misconduct in Closing Argument and omitting Petitioner’s Federal Law Arguments under 6th Amendment Right of Confrontation and the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause? Chapman , Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U.S. 637, 643 (1974) and Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 168, 181 (1986). ii LIST OF PROCEEDINGS Texas Court of Criminal Appeals No. PD -0707 -24 Miguel Adan Cayetano, Petitioner , v. The State of Texas, Respondent . Petition for Discretionary Review Refused : October 9, 2024 _ First Court of Appeals of Texas No. 01 -23-00463 -CR Miguel Adan Cayetano, Appellant , v. The State of Texas, Appellee . Memorandum Opinion : July 25, 2024 _ 230th District Court Harris County, Texas No. 123541801010 The State of Texas v. Cayetano, Miguel Adan Final Judgment : February 23, 2023

Docket Entries

2025-05-05
Petition DENIED.
2025-04-16
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/2/2025.
2025-02-04
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 2, 2025)
2024-12-20
Application (24A608) granted by Justice Alito extending the time to file until February 6, 2025.
2024-12-17
Application (24A608) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from January 7, 2025 to February 21, 2025, submitted to Justice Alito.

Attorneys

Miguel Adan Cayetano
John Joseph TripodiThe Tripodi Law Firm, P.C., Petitioner
John Joseph TripodiThe Tripodi Law Firm, P.C., Petitioner