No. 20-6628
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: conspiracy-charges criminal-procedure dea-testimony due-process evidence ineffective-assistance ineffective-assistance-of-counsel jury-instructions jury-selection trial-errors
Latest Conference:
2021-01-22
Question Presented (from Petition)
1) Was Counsel Ineffective For Not Challenging Petitioner's
Stated Cumulative Errors in Argument One?
2) Was Counsel Ineffective For Not Challenging DEA Special Agent
Doug Griffith's Testimony?
3) Petitioner Should Have Been Charged With A Buyer Seller
Relationship, Rather Than With A Conspiracy With Co-defendant?
4) Was Counsel Ineffective For Not Objecting To A Package That
Was Intercepted By The U.S. Postal Service?
5) Should Counsel Have Objected To The Testimony Of Jeff
Bairstow?
6) Was Counsel Ineffective For Not Objecting To The Jury
Instructions That Were Erroneous?
7) Was Counsel Ineffective For Not Challenging The All While
Jury Panel?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Was counsel ineffective for not challenging issues
Docket Entries
2021-01-25
Petition DENIED.
2021-01-07
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/22/2021.
2020-12-30
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2020-11-02
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due January 14, 2021)
Attorneys
Rodane Lamb
Rodane Lamb — Petitioner
United States
Jeffrey B. Wall — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent