Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Erwin Whitter, Petitioner v. Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General

No.

22-5099 ORIGINAL

Supreme Court, U S'

FILED

APR 2 8 2022

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Uil/rTeA

— PETITIONER

(Your Name)

vs.

£f,S AirdJLV&S,

— RESPONDENT(S)

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO

jJmfet> £7Tfres copra of a?fetus rtft im yjs-fittcf

(NAME OF COURT THAT LAST RULED ON MERITS OF YOUR CASE)

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

/ZAiS/fd

uJjJ/l7d£-

(Your Name)

H/cKojiv

Aeav

(Address)

(ZeaiA SL.

ztflrz - ZHZ.G

(City, State, Zip Code)

.3&± - stz- 1/7*/ y

(Phone Number)

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED

(l)The right to be granted extended time to secure counsel.

(2) The Right to Obtain Burden of Proof.

(i) The Right to the Sixth Amendment (Advisal Statute) which was not

advised by the Spartanburg appointed Public Defender.

LIST OF PARTIES

[ ] All parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page.

[ ] All parties do not appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. A list of all

parties to the proceeding in the court whose judgment is the subject of this petition is as

follows:

RELATED CASES

Erwin Whitterv. State of South Carolina, No. 2021-CP-43-015311, U.S.District Court of

Spartanburg. Judgment entered Jan. 11,2022

Erwin Whitter v. William P. Barr U.S. Attorney General, No. A077-361-246, U.S. Court of

Appeals For die District of Columbia Circuit. Judgment Entered Unknown.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

OPINIONS BELOW.

1

JURISDICTION

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

CONCLUSION.

INDEX TO APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

Erwin Whitter v. William P. Barr U.S. Attorney General, No. A077-361-246

APPENDIX B

In The District Circuit Court of Appeals For The State of South Carolina.

APPENDIX C

APPENDIX D

APPENDIX E

APPENDIX F

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED

CASES

NKEN v. HOLDER - SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED...

PAGE NUMBER

2-4

People v. Reid, 554 NE 2d 174-1990 - ill: Supreme Court - Cited by 214

STATUTES AND RULES

8 U. S. C. §1158,

(D)Changed circumstances; An application for asylum of an alien may

be considered, notwithstanding subparagraphs (B) and (C), if the alien demonstrates to the

satisfaction of the Attorney General either the existence of changed circumstances which

materially affect the applicant's eligibility for asylum or extraordinary circumstances relating

to the delay in filing an application within the period specified in subparagraph (B).

(B)Burden of proof (i)In general; The burden of proof is on the applicant to establish that

the applicant is a refugee, within the meaning of section 1101(a)(42)(A) of this title. To

establish that the applicant is a refugee within the meaning of such section, the applicant

must establish that race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or

political opinion was or will be at least one central reason for persecuting the applicant.

Rule 404(b), at its heart, prevents evidence of a person’s character from being admitted at trial to

prove that the person acted in accordance with that character or trait.) There are, of course, statutory

exceptions to this rule. Rule 404(b) states that evidence of other acts are admissible to show

opportunity, intent, knowledge, or absence of mistake.2 This rule of evidence is often used in criminal

trials, but is criminally underutilized in civil trials.

Evidence of “other acts” isn’t likely to supplant evidence of business records in civil construction

cases any time soon. However, this type of evidence, in certain situations, can be extremely valuable

— even dispositive. Exceptions such as prior knowledge, lack of mistake, or motive can show a jury

evidence that would not be admitted otherwise. This evidence can be admissible not only

under the exceptions listed in the statute, but under other exceptions as well, such as

the doctrine of chances. Also, even in cases where the evidence was excluded, the

parties still went through discovery on these issues. As the above cases show, this

type of evidence could be admissible. Thus, it is discoverable. The result is access to more

information - and more relevant information leads to more leverage in settlement and at trial.

Therefore, construction lawyers should consider using this evidence more frequently.

II. Burden of Proof

The second issue raised by the State concerns whether the circuit court incorrectly placed the

burden of proof on defendant during the hearing on defendant's motions to suppress his two

pretrial statements. In his motions and during the suppression hearing, defendant contended he

did not knowingly and intelligently waive his constitutional Miranda rights because he could not

understand the standard Miranda warnings. The circuit court denied defendant's motions. The

appellate court, however, found that the circuit court improperly placed the burden of proof on

defendant rather than on the State. Therefore, the appellate court remanded the cause to the

circuit court for reconsideration of defendant's suppression motions based on the correct burden

of proof.

Justia US Law. *66 For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the judgment of the

appellate court and affirm the judgment of the circuit court. Defense counsel indicated

during oral argument before this court that the appellate court did not address all of the

issues presented before it because it reversed defendant’s convictions for other

reasons. Consequently, defense counsel asks that if we reverse the appellate court, we

remand the cause to the appellate court for consideration of those issues the appellate

court failed to resolve. We grant defense counsel's request and remand this cause to

the appellate court for consideration of those issues raised by defendant, but not

previously resolved by us or the appellate court

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Petitioner respectfully prays that a writ of certiorari issue to review the judgment below.

OPINIONS BELOW

[<[ For cases from federal courts:

The opinion of the United States court of appeals appears at Appendix

the petition and is

[/f reported at

; or,

[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

[ ] is unpublished.

3

The opinion of the United States district court appears at Appendix

the petition and is

[ ] reported at

J or,

[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

[ ] is unpublished.

\y\ For cases from state courts:

The opinion of the highest state court to review the merits appears at

Appendix .'A * to the petition and is

os /O & /

2-0

[ A reported at

; or,

[ 3 has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

[ ] is unpublished.

The opinion of the _

court

appears at Appendix

to the petition and is

[ ] reported at

; or,

[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

[ 3 is unpublished.

1.

to

to

JURISDICTION

[ ] For cases from federal courts:

The date on which the United States Court of Appeals decided my case

was_____________________ _

[ ] No petition for rehearing was timely filed in my case.

[ ] A timely petition for rehearing was denied by the United States Court of

Appeals on the following date: ___________

and a copy of the

order denying rehearing appears at Appendix

[ ] An extension of time to file the petition for a writ of certiorari was granted

to and including______

(date) on

(date)

in Application No. __ A

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U. S. C. § 1254(1).

[ ] For cases from state courts:

The date on which the highest state court decided my case was

A copy of that decision appears at Appendix ^___

ZOXJZ.

[ ] A timely petition for rehearing was thereafter denied on the following date:

________________ :____ , and a copy of the order denying rehearing

appears at Appendix

[ ] An extension of time to file the petition for a writ of certiorari was granted

to and including____

(date) on

(date) in

Application No.__ A

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U. S. C. § 1257(a).

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

Burden of Proof: Article IV Primary tabs Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be

given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other

state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts,

records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

The Right to the Sixth Amendment (Advisal Statute): Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy an'd public trial,

by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed,

which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the

nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to

have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance

of counsel for his defense.

The right to be granted extended time to secure counsel: Rule 32.1: (i) notice

of the hearing and its purpose, the alleged violation, and the person's right to retain

counsel or to request that counsel be appointed if the person cannot obtain

counsel; Find Law; The Sixth Amendment - Rights of the Accused: Adopted in

1791 as part of the Constitution's Bill of Rights, the Sixth Amendment addresses

important issues relating to criminal law. It grants several rights to those facing criminal

charges, including the right to an attorney and the right to a trial by jury.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

I, Erwin Whitter Pro se, shall present a concise statement of the following: The

Spartanburg County Court presented a Public Defender, which He failed to provide the

“Advisal Statute” which would have produced a different outcome, the defendant

accepted a guilty plea without this provision. The defendant was unaware of his

immigration rights, also the acceptance of a guilty plea at that time, for the applicant has

a clean record, and was not educated on the laws. The applicant has been in the

appropriate appeals courts trying to seek justification on this particular matter. The

applicant as a Pro se has been trying to follow producal, at times with the discovery being

denied, for lack of the legal system. The applicant now seeks to find Justice on this action

by The Supreme Court of The United States. The BIA did not address the issue at hand

with the denied request for an extension from the Immigration Judge (IJ) in this matter,

therefore the applicant moved to The United States Court of Appeals For The Eleventh

Circuit. The Eleventh Circuit has Denied most applications on this matter, also justifying

the BIA decision. The applicant would like to be heard for the sake of Justice and the

U.S. Constitution provisions.

Mr. Whitter has been denied time to seek legal aid, time to present the Burden of Proof,

also His Advisal Statute.

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

Firstly, Granting this petition has a high likelihood of success on merit. Granting stay

would serve the public interest by allowing petitioner to remain safely in the United

States while the Court considers the merit of the Petition, for die sake ofjustice and

adjudicates this case for first impression. The issues to be raised in this Petition should be

granted considering die circumstances in its totality with regards to exercise of discretion.

Petitioner would face extreme hardship, irreparable damages. The amicus brief filed by NIJC

and other groups in 2008 had pointed out that it is very difficult for a noncitizen to return to the

United States once removed. [l]n practice it is extremely difficult for an alien to return once he has

been deported, even if his petition for review has been successful. There is no class of visa or other

formal reentry mechanism available to aliens who have been previously removed but have

successfully challenged their removal orders. As a result, trying to obtain travel documentation that

will permit a returning alien to reenter the United States can be onerous, extraordinarily

time-consuming, and often entirely improvisatory.

CONCLUSION

The petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted.

Respectfully submitted,

Date:

STun/E

*

27

20 22-