No. 22-6828
Luis Espinoza v. Tammy Foss, Warden
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: 14th-amendment 6th-amendment confrontation-clause criminal-procedure due-process fourteenth-amendment jury-instructions prosecutorial-misconduct sixth-amendment witness-testimony
Key Terms:
DueProcess FifthAmendment HabeasCorpus
DueProcess FifthAmendment HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference:
2023-03-17
Question Presented (from Petition)
Were Mr. Espinoza's Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights violated by: (1) the jury's viewing a witness's refusal to testify; (2) the prosecutor asking the witness in front of the jury whether he told Mr. Espinoza to kill the victim; and (3) the prosecutor arguing the witness's refusal to answer questions was evidence of Mr. Espinoza's guilt?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Were Mr. Espinoza's Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights violated?
Docket Entries
2023-03-20
Petition DENIED.
2023-03-02
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/17/2023.
2023-03-01
Waiver of right of respondent Foss, Warden to respond filed.
2023-02-16
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due March 24, 2023)
Attorneys
Foss, Warden
Michele Joette Swanson — California Attorney General's Office, Respondent
Luis Espinoza
Jonathan Grossman — Sixth District Appellate Prog., Petitioner