No. 23-6060
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: confrontation confrontation-clause criminal-procedure due-process evidence extrinsic-evidence right-to-present-defense rule-403 sixth-amendment speedy-trial
Latest Conference:
2024-01-05
Question Presented (from Petition)
Did the Court of Appeals violate the due process right to present a defense, in holding admissible, under O.C.G.A. § 24-4-403, (Rule 403) extrinsic evidence from a prior sexual assault case that was dismissed by a separate trial judge for a Sixth Amendment violation of the Speedy Trial Clause?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Did the Court of Appeals violate the due process right to present a defense, in holding admissible, under O.C.G.A. § 24-4-403, (Rule403) extrinsic evidence from a prior sexual assault case that was dismissed by a separate trial judge for a Sixth Amendment violation of the Speedy Trial Clause?
Docket Entries
2024-01-08
Petition DENIED.
2023-12-14
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/5/2024.
2023-12-07
Waiver of right of respondent Georgia to respond filed.
2023-11-18
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due December 20, 2023)
Attorneys
Georgia
Stephen John Petrany — Georgia Department of Law, Respondent
John L. Mulkey
John L. Mulkey — Petitioner