No. 19-6754
Cesareo Vizcarra Medina v. California
IFP
Tags: civil-rights constitutional-violations due-process fifth-amendment ineffective-assistance-of-counsel sixth-amendment 5th-amendment 6th-amendment civil-rights constitutional-rights due-process ineffective-assistance ineffective-assistance-of-counsel prosecutorial-misconduct sixth-amendment trial-procedure
Latest Conference:
2020-01-24
Question Presented (from Petition)
1. Trial Counsel was ineffective See Gailing to object to the prosecutorial misconduct and violated Defendant's rights to effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000).
2. As a result of ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment as well as Fifth and Sixth Amendment Special circumstances, Constitution Cole v. Arkansas (USE, 227%, UG 8b, 20, af
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to prosecutorial misconduct that violated petitioner's constitutional rights under the 6th Amendment
Docket Entries
2020-01-27
Petition DENIED.
2020-01-09
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/24/2020.
2019-03-26
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due December 26, 2019)
Attorneys
Cesareo V. Medina
Cesareo V. Medina — Petitioner