Skip to main content
Find a Lawyer

US Supreme Court Docket

Supreme Court Docket

Oct | Nov | Dec | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | Unscheduled | Previous Terms

[Download Oct. 6, 2008 Argument Calendar PDF]
[Click here for 2007 Docket]

Many documents listed on this page are PDF files that may be viewed using AdobeReader.

Hedgpeth v. Pulido
No. 07-544


    Anthony Hedgpeth, Warden v. Michael Robert Pulido



    Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359 (1931), required the reversal of the judgment if a general verdict could have rested on an instruction that defined a constitutionally defective alternative theory of criminal liability. However, a modern line of cases, including Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999), establishes that error in instructing on an element of a charged crime is not "structural error," so as to require automatic reversal, but is instead "trial error" and, as such, may be harmless.

    The question presented is:

    Did the Ninth Circuit fail to conform to "clearly established" Supreme Court law, as required by 28 U.S.C. section 2254(d), when it granted habeas corpus relief by deeming an erroneous instruction on one of two alternative theories of guilt to be "structural error" requiring reversal because the jury might have relied on it?




    Coming Soon
Counsel of Record

For Petitioner:

Jeremy Friedlander
Office of the Attorney General
San Francisco, CA

For Respondent:

J. Bradley O'Connell
First District Appellate Project
San Francisco, CA


Oct | Nov | Dec | Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | Unscheduled | Previous Terms


To view PDF files listed on this page you will need Adobe Acrobat Reader

Was this helpful?

Response sent, thank you

Copied to clipboard