No. 18-7099
Richard Allen Ratushny v. Kevin Kauffman, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Huntingdon, et al.
IFP
Tags: Brady-v-Maryland brady-violation conflict-of-interest crimen-falsi due-process right-to-counsel sixth-amendment welfare-fraud
Key Terms:
DueProcess
DueProcess
Latest Conference:
2019-02-22
Question Presented (from Petition)
WAS THE PETITIONER DENIED HIS SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO COUNSEL WHERE DEFENSE COUNSEL THAT REPRESENTED PETITIONER SIMULTANEOUSLY AND A POTENTIAL DEFENSE WITNESS-IN PETITIONERS CASE-RESULTED IN AN ACTUAL/OBVIOUS CONFLICT OF INTEREST ?
DID THE PROSECUTOR VIOLATE PETITIONER'S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS AND COMMIT A BRADY V. MARYLAND VIOLATION BY FAILING TO DISCLOSE EVIDENCE THAT THE VICTIM'S MOTHER, WHO WAS BOTH A PROSECUTION STAR WITNESS AND THE INITIAL COMPLAINANT, HAD RECENTLY BEEN CONVICTED OF WELFARE FRAUD, A CRIMEN FALSI ?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Was the petitioner denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel?
Docket Entries
2019-02-25
Petition DENIED.
2019-02-07
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/22/2019.
2018-09-18
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due January 22, 2019)
Attorneys
Richard Allen Ratushny
Richard Allen Ratushny — Petitioner