Supreme Court Report

Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →

Jose Mario Lopez Carrillo v. Karin Arnold, Superintendent, Stafford Creek Corrections Center, et al.

IFP petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 23-2149 · judgment July 1, 2024


Certiorari denied · October 6, 2025

Questions presented

  1. Whether fail to provide Discover was ineffectice assistance of Counsel ?

  2. Whether the indictment of information-was deficient by laking elements of essential facts require by statute ? Was Mr Lopez, imprisionment under defective indictment ? Was the indictment of charges can be prove beyond reasonable doubt when all the allegations in the indictment was no support by the record.?

  3. Was none disclosure favorable evidence, like scientific DNA, Physical examination Reports prior to trial Constitute Brady violation ? was Due Process violated by prosecution fail to disclosed Brady material?

  4. Was the Sixth an Fourteenth Constitutional rights violated by trai court interference to defense counsel to investigate the case.? Was the preparation for trail was prejudice ?

  5. Was Pie Constitutional right to counsel violated by trial court compel defense counsel to labor on conflict of interest after court was Inform the he cannot provide Constitutional assistance to his client? Was the right to counsel violated by fail to provide unconflicted counsel?

  6. Was the Sixth an Fourteenth Amendment violated by trail obstructed the process of law upon the defendant constitutional rights.?

  7. Was the Sixth an Fourteenth Constitutional right violated by counsel fail to investigate an present evidence the exculpate the defendant? Was Trial Court Committed legal error by no aplying the facts to case ?

  8. Was Due Process Violated by trail judge holding out court meeting an her Chamber’s wit a witness for the prosecution on same case ? Was the trial judge committed inpermissible unconstitutional plain error ?

  9. Was the Fourth Amendment violated by Police Charged, an arrest without Probable cause an without process ? Was The R&R using the exclusionary rule conflict with U.S.Supreme Court ? Was the Constitutionally of the Act of Congress draw into question ? <S 3 A

Counsel of record

For petitioner
Jose Mario Lopez Carrillo

For respondent
Peter Benjamin Gonick
Attorney General of Washington

Case

Conference history
Distributed for 2 conferences

Proceedings

  1. Feb 23 2026
    Rehearing DENIED.
  2. Jan 21 2026
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/20/2026.
  3. Oct 31 2025
    Petition for Rehearing filed.
  4. Oct 06 2025
    Petition DENIED.
  5. Jul 31 2025
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2025.
  6. Jul 25 2025
    Waiver of right of respondent Karin Arnold, Superintendent, et al. to respond filed.
  7. Dec 11 2024
    Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due July 25, 2025)