No. 22-7620
Timothy Sean Coogle v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: civil-rights criminal-procedure due-process entrapment evidence-sufficiency fabricated-evidence ineffective-assistance ineffective-assistance-of-counsel insufficient-evidence sixth-amendment strickland-standard
Latest Conference:
2023-06-22
Question Presented (from Petition)
Why was a Sixth Amendment violation not addressed in the Lower courts where defendant's lawyer failed utter the Strickland standards?
How is the defendant charged with an attempt crime when no substantial step was taken?
Why is insufficient and fabricated evidence not fully addressed in the lower courts?
Why was entrapment ignored in the arguments when caselaw and the government's actions clearly show defendant was entrapped?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Question not identified
Docket Entries
2023-06-26
Petition DENIED.
2023-06-07
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/22/2023.
2023-05-31
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2023-04-27
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due June 22, 2023)
Attorneys
Timothy S. Coogle
Timothy Sean Coogle — Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent