No. 22-7482
Ralph Leroy Menzies v. Robert Powell, Warden
IFP
Tags: adequate-appeal appellate-review capital-case due-process prejudice prejudice-standard transcript transcript-reconstruction voir-dire
Key Terms:
DueProcess HabeasCorpus
DueProcess HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference:
2023-09-26
Question Presented (from Petition)
1. Does the petitioner's Due Process right to an adequate and effective appeal in a capital case require a new trial where critical portions of the proceedings, including voir dire of potential jurors, are missing and cannot be reconstructed?
2. Where some or all of a transcript is unavailable and cannot be reconstructed, is a petitioner required to show that he was prejudiced as to his ability to raise a particular claim?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Does the petitioner's Due Process right to an adequate and effective appeal in a capital case require a new trial where critical portions of the proceedings, including voir dire of potential jurors, are missing and cannot be reconstructed?
Docket Entries
2023-10-02
Petition DENIED.
2023-06-22
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/26/2023.
2023-06-21
Reply of petitioner Ralph Leroy Menzies filed. (Distributed)
2023-06-07
Rule 35.3 letter regarding substitution of party filed by respondent.
2023-06-07
Brief of respondent Robert Powell in opposition filed.
2023-05-03
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due June 7, 2023)
2023-04-28
Application (22A840) denied by Justice Gorsuch.
2023-04-21
Application (22A840) to extend further the time from May 3, 2023 to June 2, 2023, submitted to Justice Gorsuch.
2023-03-27
Application (22A840) granted by Justice Gorsuch extending the time to file until May 3, 2023.
2023-03-23
Application (22A840) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from April 3, 2023 to June 2, 2023, submitted to Justice Gorsuch.
Attorneys
Ralph Leroy Menzies
Lindsey Layer — Federal Public Defender - District of Arizona, Petitioner
Robert Powell
Melissa Ann Holyoak — Utah Attorney General's Office, Respondent