No. 22-5867
Monica McCarrick v. Janelle Espinoza, Warden
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: constitutional-rights criminal-procedure due-process evidence first-degree-murder meaningful-defense mental-health paranoid-delusions premeditation trial-court-evidence
Latest Conference:
2022-11-10
Question Presented (from Petition)
1. Does an objectively unreasonable violation of the Constitutional right to present a meaningful defense occur when a trial court prevents a defendant from presenting evidence supporting her sole defense to first degree murder that she was unable to premeditate and deliberate because she suffered from paranoid delusions (not hallucinations)?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Does an objectively unreasonable violation of the Constitutional right to present a meaningful defense occur when a trial court prevents a defendant from presenting evidence supporting her sole defense to first degree murder?
Docket Entries
2022-11-14
Petition DENIED
2022-11-14
Petition DENIED.
2022-10-26
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/10/2022.
2022-10-20
Waiver of right of respondent Espinoza, Warden to respond filed.
2022-09-12
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due November 17, 2022)
Attorneys
Espinoza, Warden
Jill M. Thayer — California Attorney General's Office, Respondent
Monica McCarrick
Erin J. Radekin — Petitioner