No. 18-6679
Response RequestedResponse WaivedRelisted (2)IFP
Tags: confrontation-clause conspiracy-liability criminal-procedure due-process forfeiture forfeiture-by-wrongdoing forfeiture-doctrine giles-v-california intent witness-procurement
Latest Conference:
2019-02-15
(distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (from Petition)
Whether the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception to the Confrontation Clause encompasses acts of wrongful witness procurement done by alleged co-conspirators, without the intent or participation of the defendant.
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing exception to the Confrontation Clause encompasses acts of wrongful witness procurement done by alleged co-conspirators, without the intent or participation of the defendant
Docket Entries
2019-02-19
Petition DENIED.
2019-01-24
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/15/2019.
2019-01-18
Reply of petitioner Donate Graham filed. (Distributed)
2019-01-04
Brief of respondent People State of Illinois in opposition filed.
2018-12-12
Response Requested. (Due January 11, 2019)
2018-12-06
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/4/2019.
2018-11-27
Waiver of right of respondent People State of Illinois to respond filed.
2018-11-05
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due December 13, 2018)
Attorneys
Donate Graham
Patricia G. Mysza — Office of the State Appellate, Petitioner
People State of Illinois
Michael Marc Glick — Respondent