No. 24-5990
Darius Rush v. James Corrigan, Warden
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: brady-violation constitutional-rights criminal-procedure due-process evidence-suppression trial-counsel
Latest Conference:
2025-01-17
Question Presented (from Petition)
Whether defense attorneys' failure to challenge Constitutional violations during trial counsel's opening statement and cross-examination resulted in ineffective assistance of counsel in violation of the Sixth Amendment, and whether such violations should be reviewed under the harmless error standard.
Whether trial counsel's failure to object to prosecutorial misconduct and improper jury instructions constituted ineffective assistance of counsel requiring reversal.
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether a criminal defendant's constitutional rights were violated when trial counsel failed to challenge potentially coerced evidence and suppressed testimony under Brady v. Louisiana
Docket Entries
2025-01-21
Petition DENIED.
2025-01-07
Waiver of James Corrigan, Warden of right to respond submitted.
2025-01-07
Waiver of right of respondent James Corrigan, Warden to respond filed.
2025-01-02
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/17/2025.
2024-11-12
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due December 19, 2024)
Attorneys
Darius Rush
Darius Rush — Petitioner
James Corrigan, Warden
Ann Maurine Sherman — Michigan Department of Attorney General, Respondent