No. 18-5307
Andrew Wayne Hulen v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: compelled-admissions constitutional-rights criminal-procedure due-process fifth-amendment garrity-v-new-jersey minnesota-v-murphy penalty-situation self-incrimination self-incrimination-clause sex-offender-treatment supervised-release
Latest Conference:
2018-09-24
Question Presented (from Petition)
Whether the Ninth Circuit's failure to analyze Petitioner's argument under the classic penalty situation addressed by this Court in Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420, 426 (1984), and Garrity v. State of New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967) violates the Self Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the Ninth Circuit's failure to analyze Petitioner's argument under the classic penalty situation addressed by this Court in Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420, 426 (1984), and Garrity v. State of New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967) violates the Self Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Docket Entries
2018-10-01
Petition DENIED.
2018-08-02
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/24/2018.
2018-07-30
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2018-07-16
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due August 20, 2018)
Attorneys
Andrew Hulen
Joslyn Hunt — Federal Defenders of Montana, Petitioner
United States
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent