No. 20-317
Tags: confrontation-clause criminal-procedure dna-evidence evidence-admissibility multi-analyst-testing out-of-court-statements testimonial-statements
Latest Conference:
2021-03-05
(distributed 4 times)
Question Presented (from Petition)
Whether the Confrontation Clause permits DNA evidence obtained as the result of a multi-analyst testing process to be introduced against the defendant at trial through one of the testing analysts who has no personal knowledge of the basis for the out-of-court testimonial statements made by the other nontestifying analysts who participated in the testing.
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the Confrontation Clause permits DNA evidence obtained as the result of a multi-analyst testing process to be introduced against the defendant at trial through one of the testing analysts who has no personal knowledge of the basis for the out-of-court testimonial statements made by the other nontestifying analysts who participated in the testing
Docket Entries
2021-03-08
Petition DENIED. Justice Gorsuch, dissenting from the denial of certiorari: I dissent for the reasons set out in Stuart v. Alabama, 586 U. S. ___ (2018) (Gorsuch, J., dissenting).
2021-03-01
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/5/2021.
2021-02-22
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/26/2021.
2021-01-27
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/19/2021.
2020-11-20
Reply of petitioner Dakai Chavis filed.
2020-11-09
Motion to delay distribution of the petition for a writ certiorari until November 24, 2020 granted.
2020-11-05
Motion of petitioner to delay distribution of the petition for a writ of certiorari under Rule 15.5 from November 17, 2020 to November 24, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.
2020-10-28
Brief of respondent Delaware in opposition filed.
2020-09-28
Response Requested. (Due October 28, 2020)
2020-09-23
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/9/2020.
2020-09-22
Waiver of right of respondent Delaware to respond filed.
2020-09-04
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 13, 2020)
Attorneys
Dakai Chavis
E. Joshua Rosenkranz — Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Petitioner
Delaware