No. 18-8645

David Dean Harris v. Lorie Davis, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division

Lower Court: Fifth Circuit
Docketed: 2019-04-01
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
IFP
Tags: appeal-procedure constitutional-violation due-process ineffective-assistance-of-counsel ineffective-counsel presumption-of-innocence sixth-amendment supreme-court-precedent victim-identification witness-testimony
Key Terms:
DueProcess HabeasCorpus Jurisdiction
Latest Conference: 2019-05-30
Question Presented (from Petition)

WAS THE STATES USE OF THE COMPLAINING WITNESSES NAME SPECIFICALLY AS THE VICTIM A VIOLATION OF PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE, SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT, UNITED STATES CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION, DUE PROCESS AND SIXTH AMENDMENT VIOLATION?

WAS PETITIONERS RIGHT 10 COUNSEL VIOLATED WHEN PETITIONER'S ATTORNEY ALLOWED IN EXTRANEOUS OFFENSE EVIDENCE? HE SPECIFICALLY FILED MOTIONS TO KEEP IN VIOLATION STATE STATUTORY LAW 403, UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION 6 AMENDMENT.

WAS PETITIONERS ATTORNEY INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO OBJECT TO THREE WITNESSES WHO DID TESTIFY UNDER 403? BUT OBJECTED TO 403 TO THE ONE WITNESS WHO DID NOT TESTIFY. SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT 6.

WAS PETITIONERS APPEAL ATTORNEY INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILINGTO CITE ANY CONTROLLING AUTHORITY ON PETITIONER' 15 DIRECT APPEAL? IN VIOLATION OF 5TH CIRCUIT PRECEDENT, UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT 6?

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Was the state's use of the complaining witness's name specifically as the victim a violation of presumption of innocence, Supreme Court precedent, United States Constitutional violation, due process and Sixth Amendment violation?

Docket Entries

2019-06-03
Petition DENIED.
2019-05-15
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/30/2019.
2019-02-14
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due May 1, 2019)

Attorneys

David Dean Harris
David Dean Harris — Petitioner