Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Joseph Q. Mirarchi v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel
Paid petition · Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Eastern District, No. 2485 Disciplinary Docket No. 3 · judgment March 18, 2019
Before the decision, well below the 4.1% base rate, with no standout signals pointing toward a grant.
Question presented
Whether the state supreme court order for attorney disbarment is inconsistent with the standards set forth in Selling v. Radford, 243 U.S. 46, 50-51 (1917), and In re Ruffalo, 390 U.S. 544, 550 (1968), and is violative of U.S. CONST. AMENDS. V, VI & XIV; and PA. CONST., art. I, § 9, cl. 1, as the court allowed the ineffective assistance of Petitioner’s trial counsel to preclude the admission of relevant, material mitigation evidence of his Medical and Neuropsychological Expert Witness Reports—despite the state declaring that it would not be prejudiced by its admission—thereby depriving Petitioner of his constitutional rights to Due Process and effective assistance of counsel.
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Joseph Quinto Mirarchi
Mirarchi Legal Services, P.C.
For respondent
Richard Hernandez
Office of Disciplinary Counsel
Case
Conference history
Distributed for 1 conference
Proceedings
- Oct 07 2019Petition DENIED.
- Sep 26 2019Supplemental brief of petitioner Joseph Q. Mirarchi filed. (Distributed)
- Jul 17 2019DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/1/2019.
- Jun 24 2019Waiver of right of respondent Office of Diciplinary Counsel to respond filed.
- Jun 17 2019Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due July 19, 2019)