Effective lawyers after conviction
Carson v. United States
In brief
- Where it stands
- Dismissed
Petition denied.
- What it’s about
- Adam Carson asks whether someone appointed a lawyer by a federal appeals court under the Criminal Justice Act for a later challenge to a conviction has a constitutional right to effective legal help.
- Who it affects
- The denial ended Carson's Supreme Court case without answering whether people in such proceedings have that constitutional right.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
A collateral proceeding is a later challenge to a conviction; Carson's question concerns lawyers appointed under the federal Criminal Justice Act for those challenges.
Question presented
If a Petitioner is appointed counsel in a collateral proceeding by the United States Court of Appeals under the Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. 3006A, does the Petitioner have a due process right to effective assistance of counsel?
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
New analysis added
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Show 2 moreShow fewer
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Brief added: Petition
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.