No. 21-7207
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: accomplice-liability constitutional-law criminal-law criminal-procedure due-process jury-unanimity precedent state-courts supreme-court-precedent
Latest Conference:
2022-04-14
Question Presented (from Petition)
This Court should grant certiorari to decide whether or how Schad v Arizona, 501 U.S. 624 (1991), continues to apply following the decisions in Ramos v. Louisiana, _U.S._, 140 S. Ct. 1390 (2020) and Edwards v Vannoy, _U.S._, 141 S. Ct. 1547 (2021).
New York's courts do not require juror unanimity under all circumstances. Is it permissible for a state court to instruct a criminal jury that they "need not be unanimous" regarding whether the defendant acted as principal or accomplice to a crime?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether Saad v Arizona continues to apply following Ramos v. Louisiana and Edwards v Vannoy
Docket Entries
2022-04-18
Petition DENIED.
2022-03-24
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/14/2022.
2022-03-10
Waiver of right of respondent New York to respond filed.
2022-02-22
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due March 28, 2022)
Attorneys
New York
Scott Myles — Monroe County District Attorney's Office, Respondent
Robert Brewer
David Michael Abbatoy — Petitioner