No. 25-5789
Joseph Anthony Barrett v. California
IFP
Tags: criminal-procedure fourteenth-amendment implicit-bias juror-bias jury-selection sixth-amendment
Key Terms:
DueProcess Punishment JusticiabilityDoctri
DueProcess Punishment JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference:
2026-01-09
Question Presented (AI Summary)
When a charged crime occurs within prison walls, do the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments require excusal for cause of prospective jurors who are employed by the state's prison management agency on the ground of implicit bias because they identify economically, socially, and emotionally with their employer?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
When a charged crime occurs within prison walls, do the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments require excusal for cause of prospective jurors who are employed by the state’s prison management agency on the ground of implicit bias because they identify economical ly, socially, and emotionally with their employer? iii STATEMENT OF
Docket Entries
2026-01-12
Petition DENIED.
2025-12-17
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/9/2026.
2025-12-03
Brief of State of California in opposition submitted.
2025-12-03
Brief of respondent California in opposition filed.
2025-10-10
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including December 3, 2025.
2025-10-09
Motion of State of California for an extension of time submitted.
2025-10-09
Motion to extend the time to file a response from November 3, 2025 to December 3, 2025, submitted to The Clerk.
2025-09-19
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due November 3, 2025)
Attorneys
Joseph Barrett
State of California
Holly D. Wilkens — Office of the Attorney General, Respondent
Holly D. Wilkens — Office of the Attorney General, Respondent