No. 18-7110
James M. Flinn v. Mike Parris, Warden
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: criminal-procedure due-process evidence fourteenth-amendment indictment indictment-allegations insufficient-evidence jury-instructions reasonable-doubt sufficiency-of-evidence
Key Terms:
DueProcess HabeasCorpus CriminalProcedure JusticiabilityDoctri
DueProcess HabeasCorpus CriminalProcedure JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference:
2019-01-11
Question Presented (from Petition)
(1) Whether the Petitioner was convicted upon insufficient evidence in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when, pursuant to the State's practice, the allegations in the Petitioner's indictment of the essential elements were read to the jury by the district attorney as conclusive evidence of one of the elements?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the Petitioner was convicted upon insufficient evidence in violation of the Due Process Clause
Docket Entries
2019-01-14
Petition DENIED.
2018-12-27
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/11/2019.
2018-12-21
Waiver of right of respondent Parris, Warden to respond filed.
2018-12-13
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due January 18, 2019)
Attorneys
James M. Flinn
James M. Flinn — Petitioner
Parris, Warden
Nicholas White Spangler — Office of Tennessee Attorney General, Respondent