No. 25-6922
Response RequestedResponse WaivedIFP
Tags: armed-robbery confrontation-clause direct-appeal DNA-analysis forensic-evidence surrogate-testimony
Latest Conference:
N/A
Question Presented (from Petition)
Whether, in light of this Court's intervening decision in Smith v. Arizona, this Court should grant the petition, vacate the judgments below, and remand this matter for reconsideration?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether, in light of this Court's intervening decision in Smith v. Arizona, petitioner's convictions based on surrogate DNA analyst testimony violate the Confrontation Clause and warrant vacatur and remand for reconsideration
Docket Entries
2026-04-15
Brief of Louisiana in opposition submitted.
2026-03-16
Response Requested. (Due April 15, 2026)
2026-03-12
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/27/2026.
2026-03-06
Waiver of Louisiana of right to respond submitted.
2026-03-06
Waiver of right of respondent Louisiana to respond filed.
2026-02-17
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due March 30, 2026)
Attorneys
BJ McElveen
Jane Catherine Hogan — Hogan Attorneys, Petitioner
Louisiana
Jorge Benjamin Aguinaga — Louisiana Department of Justice, Respondent