No. 24-7100
Gerald Brent Harris v. Scott Frauenheim, Warden
Key Terms:
DueProcess HabeasCorpus
DueProcess HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference:
2025-05-29
Question Presented (from Petition)
Whether the Court should issue a GVR order to allow the district court to apply the intervening decision in Andrew v. White, 145 S. Ct. 75 (2025), to Petitioner's admission of unduly prejudicial evidence due process claim, which the district court denied on the now-repudiated ground that no clearly established federal law provided that the Due Process Clause forbids the introduction of evidence so unduly prejudicial as to render a criminal trial fundamentally unfair.
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the Court should issue a GVR order to allow the district court to apply the intervening decision in Andrew v. White to Petitioner's admission of unduly prejudicial evidence due process claim
Docket Entries
2025-06-02
Petition DENIED.
2025-05-14
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/29/2025.
2025-05-13
Waiver of right of respondent Scott Frauenheim to respond filed.
2025-04-24
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due May 30, 2025)
Attorneys
Gerald Harris
Gary Paul Burcham — Burcham & Zugman, APC, Petitioner
Scott Frauenheim
Justain P. Riley — CA Dept. of Justice: Office of the AG, Respondent