No. 21-6348
Rafael Ramiro-Medina v. United States
Response RequestedResponse WaivedRelisted (2)IFP
Tags: appellate-review batson-challenge criminal-procedure discriminatory-intent equal-protection fact-finding jury-selection procedural-error racial-discrimination standard-of-review
Latest Conference:
2022-04-14
(distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (from Petition)
If a trial court legally errs in applying the final step of the process under Batson v. Kentucky, 476
U.S. 79 (1986), can a federal court of appeals conduct appellate fact-finding and resolve for itself the
factual question of whether an attorney had a discriminatory intent in striking a prospective juror?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether a federal court of appeals can conduct appellate fact-finding and resolve the factual question of discriminatory intent under Batson v. Kentucky
Docket Entries
2022-04-18
Petition DENIED.
2022-03-30
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/14/2022.
2022-03-28
Reply of petitioner Rafael Ramiro-Medina filed. (Distributed)
2022-03-16
Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.
2022-02-09
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including March 16, 2022.
2022-02-08
Motion to extend the time to file a response from February 14, 2022 to March 16, 2022, submitted to The Clerk.
2022-01-06
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including February 14, 2022.
2022-01-05
Motion to extend the time to file a response from January 13, 2022 to February 14, 2022, submitted to The Clerk.
2021-12-14
Response Requested. (Due January 13, 2022)
2021-12-09
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/7/2022.
2021-12-01
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2021-11-16
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due December 22, 2021)
Attorneys
Rafael Ramiro-Medina
Zandra Lopez — Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent