No. 19-8916
Adam Lee Hamilton v. Eileen Ramey, Warden
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: arizona-v-youngblood brady-v-maryland constitutional-authority criminal-procedure due-process exculpatory-evidence first-degree-assault impeachment-evidence missouri-prosecution napue-v-illinois
Key Terms:
DueProcess
DueProcess
Latest Conference:
2020-09-29
Question Presented (from Petition)
The Question(s) Presented are, does the State Of Missour have the authority to deprive petitioner of his libertyunder The Constitution Of The United States, The Fourteenth Amendment, Sction , Andoverrale, Bradyv.Maryland373 U.S.63,83 s.C4. 194,10LEd.2d215 (163) NapuevIinis, 360U.S.264,79 S.Ct.1173.L.E.2d1217 1959; and Ariz.V.Youngblood, 488 U.S.51.
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Does the State of Missouri have the authority under the Constitution of the United States to charge, try, and convict the petitioner of first-degree robbery, first-degree assault, and two counts of armed criminal action
Docket Entries
2020-10-05
Petition DENIED.
2020-07-30
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2020.
2020-07-23
Waiver of right of respondent Eileen Ramey to respond filed.
2020-06-26
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due August 7, 2020)
Attorneys
Adam Lee Hamilton
Adam Lee Hamilton — Petitioner
Eileen Ramey
Julie Marie Blake — Missouri Attorney General's Office, Respondent