No. 21-5383
Mark Stinson v. John P. Yates, Warden
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: conflict-of-interest constitutional-provisions criminal-procedure due-process judicial-inquiry right-to-counsel sixth-amendment
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity Securities
SocialSecurity Securities
Latest Conference:
2021-09-27
Question Presented (from Petition)
1. Whether a Judge must inquire into the propriety of the issue.
2. Whether the mere possibility of a conflict of interest warrants the conclusion that the defendant was deprived of his right to counsel.
3. Whether their was a violation of the Sixth Amendment Right.
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether a Judge must inquire into the propriety of the issue
Docket Entries
2021-10-04
Petition DENIED.
2021-08-26
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/27/2021.
2021-08-19
Waiver of right of respondent Yates, Warden to respond filed.
2021-07-27
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due September 16, 2021)
Attorneys
Mark Stinson
Mark Stinson — Petitioner
Yates, Warden
Brian H. Fletcher — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent