No. 23-7708
Joshua Peters v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: burden-shifting constitutional-law criminal-procedure due-process government-misconduct new-trial presumption-of-innocence prosecutorial-misconduct trial-order
Latest Conference:
2024-09-30
Question Presented (from Petition)
Before trial, the district court barred the Government from commenting that the defense had the opportunity to conduct independent forensic testing on the firearms which were the subject of prosecution. That order was to prevent impermissible burden shifting. Only if the defense "put on evidence" or "noted that the Government failed to test the firearms for DNA and fingerprints" could the Government comment in closing. The Government did so nonetheless, flouting the pretrial order. Is this sort of burden-shifting, no matter the strength of the Government's case, so improper and contrary to the presumption of innocence that a new trial is warranted?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Burden-shifting-in-criminal-trial
Docket Entries
2024-10-07
Petition DENIED.
2024-06-27
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/30/2024.
2024-06-21
Waiver of United States of right to respond submitted.
2024-06-21
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2024-06-10
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due July 15, 2024)
Attorneys
Joshua Peters
Ryan Harrison James — James Law, LLC, Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Respondent