State Of Louisiana VS Raymond S. Spitz
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA 2020 NO. KW 0916 VERSUS RAYMOND In S. SPITZ Re: DECEIVER Raymond S. Judicial Spitz, 21, 2020 applying for supervisory writs, District Court, Parish St. of 22nd No. Tammany, 200821. BEFORE: WHIPPLE, C. J., DENIED. In WRIT S. Ct. 1390, 1397, Supreme Court applies to the Court to specifically to jury question to brief a on question Court. L. Ed. 2d declined to in So. 3d 1051, cases where we in is 140 United States However, the C. J., have their a is S. Ct. at 1407. to cases before the 2737, 206 Court has should apply on decision proceedings pending a 2019- 01815 ( La. 6/ 3/ 20), dissenting a chance adversarial Supreme Ramos right review pending 140 S. Ct. Louisiana Court the retroactively whether on will 140 apply Gipson, Johnson, from at , currently court v. parties applied The wjhether collateral U. S. rule state State the must review of "[ on U. S. Moreover, 1052 ( the review. benefit will Ramos definitively See to Vannoy, — 2020). Edwards. question Ramos, v. review collateral the case collateral 917 ( collateral that whether Edwards 2020), criminal trials equally." whether its holding on and See of 583 ( U. S._, , address applies issue the federal to future presentation." The federal observed for JJ. Louisiana, _ v. L. Ed. 2d cases unanimity CHUTZ, the Sixth Amendment' s unanimity requirement and declined retroactively Ramos 206 held, " state WELCH AND to point out 296 that she disagreed with the majority' s decision to defer ruling until the United are decision the States constrained does district Supreme to not deny Court preclude court if mandates relief relator warranted court( s). VGW JEW WRC COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT zuk DFPUT C FOR ER OF THE COURT COURT at by action). this from the time. reurging decision Therefore, However, the of issue the we our in higher
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
