No. 23-5284
John Wesley Lee, Jr. v. Maryland
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: constitutional-rights criminal-procedure discovery discovery-violation dna-evidence dna-testing due-process ineffective-assistance-of-counsel judicial-misconduct pro-se-litigant video-recording
Latest Conference:
2023-09-26
Question Presented (from Petition)
1. Whether an Indigent Pro Se Petitioner Entitled to counsel; where DNA Testing Results and Video Recording exist; but, never given to the trial attorney at the trial, despite ominibus Motion For Discovery Prior to Trial.
2. Whether a failure to disclose DNA Testing Results and Video Recording is a clear violation in the case of Thompson v. Greene, 427 F. 3d 263 (4th Cir. 2005); and,
3. Whether the Honorable Judge Charles J. Peters violated Maryland Rule Chapter 744 of The Law of Maryland Criminal Procedure Article 4-332 (e)(3) & (d), (d)(10) and (d)(13)
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether an Indigent Pro Se Petitioner is Entitled to counsel
Docket Entries
2023-10-02
Petition DENIED.
2023-08-31
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/26/2023.
2023-08-24
Waiver of right of respondent Maryland to respond filed.
2023-07-24
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due September 5, 2023)
Attorneys
John Lee
John Wesley Lee Jr. — Petitioner
Maryland
Jeremy Hugh Welter — Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Respondent