No. 20-6496

Michael Alford v. United States

Lower Court: Eleventh Circuit
Docketed: 2020-12-02
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: child-pornography criminal-procedure due-process evidentiary-hearing expert-services expert-witness forensic-evidence ineffective-assistance-of-counsel legal-assistance motion-of-innocence pro-se-litigant right-to-counsel
Latest Conference: 2021-01-15
Question Presented (from Petition)

Wheth The Court erred in Refusing To Order legal assistance and forensic Software expert assist. To Obtain and Subrit factual evidence of The Microsoft Windows Operating Softuare & functions Proving That The ThumbNails was Not Knowingly Received because They did Not Come from an Outside Source

2 whether The Court erred in Refusing To Order legal assistance To obtain and Submit additional evidence Proving That The Spam e-mail wos Not Knowingly Received e

Whether a Pro se litigant has an equal Right To Obtain expert Services as Attorneys under 300t A (e)12) To Submit factual evidence in Support of The Merits ofa 2255 motion of innocence

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the court erred in refusing to order legal assistance and forensic software expert assistance to obtain and submit factual evidence

Docket Entries

2021-01-19
Petition DENIED.
2020-12-30
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/15/2021.
2020-12-17
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2020-06-30
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due January 4, 2021)

Attorneys

Michael Alford
Michael Alford — Petitioner
United States
Jeffrey B. WallActing Solicitor General, Respondent