Right to question witnesses
Smith v. Florida
In brief
- Where it stands
- Dismissed
Petition denied.
- What it’s about
- Smith asked the Supreme Court to review claims about alleged prosecutorial misconduct, a witness subpoena and cross-examination, sentencing after a charge was dropped, speedy-trial rights, and whether a federal civil-rights law applied to post-conviction proceedings.
- Who it affects
- Smith did not get Supreme Court review, and the Court made no decision on his claims.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.

What it's about
The Court refused to hear the case and did not decide whether any claim was correct.
Smith's petition raised issues from a Florida criminal case and related proceedings after conviction.
Question presented
1. When State Prosecutor fail to adhere to ethical obligations, and not avoid the appearance of partiality, also not obey discovery obligations merely to secure a conviction, does this negate legal principles of the United States Constitutions 6 th Amendment and legitimizes unavailability of a witness due to the deliberate not signing of, and rejecting a subpoena for trial for that particular witness, by the prosecutor over the case? Under the 4 th , 5 th , 6 th and 14 th Amendment of the United States Constitution. 2. When an act of bad faith by an official is reprimanded and that official is part of a case, if the defendant makes a substantial showing prior to the outcome of said official, does the defendant have a right to effectively cross examine to any extent that witness during precursory process under the sixth amendment of the United States Constitution. 3. When the State nolle prosqui a charge off of the information, in writing on a plea form and on the same day orally pronounce in open court nolle prosqui of said count does further proceedings have jurisdiction to present or impose a sentence under the 14 th Amendment of the United States Constitution? 4. When a Defendant is subjected to willful denial of all of his rights in a criminal proceeding does 18 U.S.C. Section 242 apply to his post-Conviction proceeding? 5. Under the United States Constitution 14 th Amendment can the asserted claim of “ failed to protect fundamental rights” apply to speedy trial violation?
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Show 1 moreShow fewer
Brief added: Petition
More questions
- What did Smith ask about the dropped charge?
- He asked whether a court could proceed to sentence him on a charge prosecutors had formally dropped.
- What did Smith ask about 18 U.S.C. § 242?
- He asked whether that federal civil-rights law applied to proceedings after his conviction.
- Did the Court endorse Florida's handling of the case?
- No. The denial was procedural and did not endorse either side's position.
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.