No. 25-5070
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: brady-violation criminal-procedure evidence-disclosure forfeiture-by-wrongdoing legal-disclosure witness-testimony
Key Terms:
DueProcess
DueProcess
Latest Conference:
2025-09-29
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Did the State violate Brady v. Maryland when it failed to disclose a June 8, 2010, supplemental police report that would have made key witness Stephen Hymel's statement inadmissible under the forfeiture by wrongdoing exception of La. Code Evid. art. 804(B)(7)?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
Did the State violate Brady v. Maryland when it failed to disclose a June 8, 2010, supplemental police report that would have made key witness Stephen Hymel's statement inadmissible under the forfeiture by wrongdoing exception of La. Code Evid. art. 804(B)(7)?
Docket Entries
2025-10-06
Petition DENIED.
2025-08-07
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2025.
2025-08-04
Waiver of right of respondent Louisiana to respond filed.
2025-05-20
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due August 8, 2025)
Attorneys
Kedrick Johnson
Kedrick Johnson — Petitioner
Louisiana
Bradley Michael Scott — Orleans Parish District Attorney, Respondent