No. 23-5196
Tags: attenuation-doctrine court-of-criminal-appeals criminal-act criminal-law due-process intervening-circumstance legal-standard police-misconduct texas-criminal-procedure utah-v-strieff
Latest Conference:
2023-09-26
Question Presented (from Petition)
1. Was the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals correct in holding that any new criminal act —even one that is petty , predictable , and uncharged —is always an intervening circumstance under the attenuation doctrine?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Was the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals correct in holding that any new criminal act—even one that is petty, predictable, and uncharged—is always an intervening circumstance under the attenuation doctrine?
Docket Entries
2023-10-02
Petition DENIED.
2023-08-24
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/26/2023.
2023-08-17
Waiver of right of respondent State of Texas to respond filed.
2023-07-24
Application (23A56) granted by Justice Alito extending the time to file until August 15, 2023.
2023-07-21
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due August 24, 2023)
2023-07-19
Application (23A56) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from July 25, 2023 to August 15, 2023, submitted to Justice Alito.
Attorneys
James Massey
Brandon Elliott Beck — Brandon Beck Law, Petitioner
State of Texas
Andrea Jacobs — Tarrant County District Attorney's Office, Respondent