No. 18-1043
Response RequestedRelisted (2)
Tags: burden-of-proof coerced-testimony criminal-procedure due-process false-testimony napue-standard napue-v-illinois recantation reliability-hearing witness-coercion
Key Terms:
DueProcess
DueProcess
Latest Conference:
2019-10-01
(distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (from Petition)
1. What is the burden of proof for the accused to show an error under Napue?
2. Did Zilm meet this burden?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Conviction of child sex abuse challenged on due process grounds for use of coerced testimony at trial
Docket Entries
2019-12-09
Record returned to the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma (1 box).
2019-10-07
Petition DENIED.
2019-06-19
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/1/2019.
2019-06-03
Brief of respondent Oklahoma in opposition filed.
2019-05-03
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including June 3, 2019.
2019-04-30
Motion to extend the time to file a response from May 2, 2019 to June 1, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
2019-04-09
Record received from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma (1 box).
2019-04-02
Response Requested. (Due May 2, 2019)
2019-04-02
Record Requested.
2019-04-02
Record received from the Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma. The record is electronic.
2019-03-27
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/12/2019.
2019-02-05
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due March 11, 2019)
Attorneys
Adam Clayton Zilm
James L. Hankins — Petitioner
Oklahoma