Whether a criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel is violated by sustained conflicts between lead and co-counsel and serious physical maladies of counsel during a capital trial

No question identified. : To the Honorable Amy Coney Barrett, Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States and Circuit Justice for the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. APPLICATION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME Pursuant to Rule 13.5 of the Rules of the Court, Applicant Jeffrey A. Weisheit respectfully requests a 60-day extension of time to file his petition for a writ of certiorari, up to and including Friday, February 27, 2026. JUDGMENT FOR WHICH REVIEW IS SOUGHT The order and judgment for which review is sought was issued by the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on September 29, 2025, in Weishet v. Neal, No. 23-2906. Exhibit A (Doc. 54). This is the order summarily denying Petition for Rehearing En Banc (Doc. 51). The original opinion affirming the Southern District of Indiana’s denial of Applicant’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas corpus was issued on August 13, 2025. Exhibit B (Doc. 47). JURISDICTION This Court will have jurisdiction over any timely filed petition for certiorari pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1). Under Rules 13.1, 13.3, and 30.1 of the Rules of this Court, a petition for writ of certiorari is due to be filed on or before April 28, 2025. In accordance with Rule 13.5, this application is being filed at least ten days in advance of the filing date for the petition for a writ of certiorari. REASONS JUSTIFYING AN EXTENSION OF TIME An extension of time is necessary due to the gravity and complexity of the issues in this case in addition to undersigned counsel’s pressing obligations in other capital representation. This case emanates from a 2013 trial in Clark County (following change of venue from Vanderbergh County), Indiana, of Mr. Weisheit, who suffers serious mental illness following a history of repeated serious brain trauma. At trial, Mr. Weisheit’s dysfunctional representation was marked by sustained conflicts on the representation between lead and co-counsel and serious physical maladies of counsel, including the death of initial first chair, a heart attack suffered by replacement first chair at the courthouse at a critical juncture of the trial, and second chair’s esophogeal cancer diagnosis requiring regular chemotherapy in addition to his pressing administrative duties. The present appeal also raises thorny procedural questions involving the unusual course and circumstances of habeas corpus proceedings in the district court. Mr. Voisin has had deadlines and other commitments in several capital cases, including Grayson v. Cain, No. 25-70001 (Sth Cir.), Walker v. Cain, No. 97-cv-29HSO (S.D. Miss.), Davis v. Guerrero, No. 3:21-cv-02333-B-BM (N.D. Tex.), and Brooks v. Raybon, No. 1:17-cv-01532-MHH (N.D. Ala.). Mr. Perkovich, since conclusion of these proceedings in the court of appeals, has conducted, inter alia, briefing in successive capital post-conviction proceedings in the Mississippi Supreme Court, Carr v. State, 2023-DR-0503, in addition to other matters listed below with respect to Mr. Welling’s obligations. Presently, Mr. Perkovich is conducting pleading and motion practice in a capital post-conviction matter in December, State of Alabama v. Newton, CC-2001-049.61 (Macon Cnty Cir. Ct.), motion practice in another federal capital habeas corpus action, Cade v. Director, TDCJ, 3:17-cv-03396-G-BT (N.D. Tex.), and preparing for an impending resentencing hearing in State of Michigan v. Terry D. Dumas, LC No. 11-00834602-FC (Wayne Cir. Ct.), and a post-conviction hearing in State of Maryland v. Dante Jeter, No. 109198026 (Baltimore City Cir. Ct.). In addition, Messrs. Perkovich and Welling represent two separate capital petitioners in initial post-conviction cases in Arizona. The first, State v. Joseph, CR2005-014235-001, involves an imminent evidentiary hearing on intellectual disability. State v. Joseph, CR2005-014235-001. The second initial post-conviction proceeding in question has the petition for post-conviction relief due by May 7, 2026. State v. Montoya, CR2017