Question Presented (from Petition)
1. Did the Ninth Circuit err when it found that Petitioner's "organic" brain dysfunction was not enough of a red flag to trigger a duty for trial counsel to investigate it for use at the penalty phase of Petitioner's capital trial?
2. Must the errors of counsel at the penalty phase of a capital trial be assessed cumulatively for the purpose of establishing prejudice, and if so, should the Ninth Circuit have issued a certificate of appealability on Petitioner's claim of cumulative error?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in finding that the petitioner's 'organic' brain dysfunction was not enough of a 'red flag' to trigger a duty for trial counsel to investigate it for use at the penalty phase of the petitioner's capital trial
2022-09-29
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/14/2022.
2022-09-20
Reply of petitioner Teddy Sanchez filed.
2022-09-13
Brief of respondent Ron Broomfield, Warden in opposition filed.
2022-08-01
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including September 14, 2022.
2022-07-27
Motion to extend the time to file a response from August 15, 2022 to September 14, 2022, submitted to The Clerk.
2022-07-11
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due August 15, 2022)
2022-05-03
Application (21A676) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until July 10, 2022.
2022-04-27
Application (21A676) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from May 11, 2022 to July 10, 2022, submitted to Justice Kagan.