No. 24-5910
Robert Ward Frazier v. California
IFP
Tags: autonomy-right capital-defendant counsel-objection fundamental-objectives mitigation-defense sixth-amendment
Latest Conference:
2025-02-21
Question Presented (from Petition)
Is a capital defendant deprived of their Sixth Amendment autonomy right to determine the fundamental objectives of their defense, as recognized by this Court in McCoy v. Louisiana, 584 U.S. 414 (2018), where appointed counsel presents, over repeated and express objections, a mitigation defense that the defendant finds personally offensive and opprobrious?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Is a capital defendant deprived of their Sixth Amendment autonomy right to determine the fundamental objectives of their defense when appointed counsel presents a mitigation defense over the defendant's express objections?
Docket Entries
2025-02-24
Petition DENIED.
2025-01-30
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/21/2025.
2025-01-15
Brief of California in opposition submitted.
2025-01-15
Brief of respondent California in opposition filed.
2024-12-23
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including February 5, 2025.
2024-12-20
Motion of California for an extension of time submitted.
2024-12-20
Motion to extend the time to file a response from January 6, 2025 to February 5, 2025, submitted to The Clerk.
2024-11-19
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including January 6, 2025.
2024-11-18
Motion to extend the time to file a response from December 5, 2024 to January 6, 2025, submitted to The Clerk.
2024-10-31
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due December 5, 2024)
Attorneys
California
Robert Ward Frazier