No. 18-7651
Eric Steve Anderson v. California
IFP
Tags: antagonistic-defenses conspiracy constitutional-rights criminal-procedure fair-trial jury jury-trial severance severance-motion
Key Terms:
DueProcess
DueProcess
Latest Conference:
2019-03-29
Question Presented (from Petition)
Did this trial court's denial of petitioner's severance motion as to co-defendant Randy Lee and its subsequent acquittal of Lee on the conspiracy charge alleged against both defendants violate petitioner's constitutional right to a fair jury trial when petitioner and co-defendant had antagonistic defenses and the trial court's erroneous acquittal of the conspiracy charge for the co-defendant precluded the jury from fairly evaluating petitioner's defense?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Did this trial court's denial of petitioner's severance motion as to co-defendant and its subsequent acquittal of co-defendant on the conspiracy charge violate petitioner's constitutional right to a fair jury trial?
Docket Entries
2019-04-01
Petition DENIED.
2019-03-14
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/29/2019.
2019-02-27
Brief of respondent California in opposition filed.
2019-01-25
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due February 28, 2019)
2018-11-30
Application (18A568) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until February 9, 2019.
2018-11-19
Application (18A568) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from December 11, 2018 to February 9, 2019, submitted to Justice Kagan.
Attorneys
California
Michael Thomas Murphy — California Department of Justice, Respondent
Eric Anderson
Joanna McKim — Joanna McKim Attorney At Law, Petitioner