No. 18-6464
Frank Ralph LaPena v. George Grigas, et al.
Tags: contract-killing criminal-conviction criminal-procedure due-process habeas-corpus highly-deferential-review ineffective-assistance-of-counsel legal-insufficiency legal-sufficiency nevada-supreme-court physical-evidence rational-juror reasonable-doubt sufficiency-of-evidence witness-testimony wrongful-conviction
Latest Conference:
2018-12-07
Question Presented (from Petition)
Whether the Nevada Supreme Court's decision rejecting the legal insufficiency claim was unreasonable because, even under a highly deferential review, no rational juror could have concluded Weakland killed Hilda when his description of the manner of death was inconsistent in every way with the physical evidence?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the Nevada Supreme Court's decision rejecting the legal insufficiency claim was unreasonable because, even under a highly deferential review, no rational juror could have concluded Weakland killed Hilda when his description of the manner of death was inconsistent in every way with the physical evidence?
Docket Entries
2018-12-10
Petition DENIED.
2018-11-21
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/7/2018.
2018-11-08
Waiver of right of respondents George Grigas, et al. to respond filed.
2018-10-15
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due November 26, 2018)
Attorneys
Frank R. LaPena
George Grigas, et al.
Heather Diane Procter — Respondent