No. 21-6149
Domingo Palma v. Massachusetts
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: constitutional-rights criminal-procedure due-process fair-trial fourteenth-amendment mistrial prosecutorial-misconduct sixth-amendment
Key Terms:
DueProcess
DueProcess
Latest Conference:
2022-01-07
Question Presented (from Petition)
Are the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments violated by a trial court's refusal to grant a mistrial where a prosecution witness injects groundless, irrelevant, and inflammatory bad act testimony, and the resulting prejudice was neither cured nor curable?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Are the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments violated by a trial court's refusal to grant a mistrial where a prosecution witness injects groundless, irrelevant, and inflammatory bad act testimony, and the resulting prejudice was neither cured nor curable?
Docket Entries
2022-01-10
Petition DENIED.
2021-12-02
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/7/2022.
2021-11-30
Waiver of right of respondent Massachusetts to respond filed.
2021-10-28
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due December 2, 2021)
Attorneys
Domingo Palma
Eric Brandt — Committee for Public Counsel Services, Petitioner
Massachusetts
Anna E. Lumelsky — Massachusetts Attorney General's Office, Respondent