# Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Cuneo v. Pennsylvania > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386005_1150%3A1 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Petition for Writ of Certiorari - **Published:** January 1, 1999 - **Citation:** 528 U.S. 966 ## Text No. IN THE Supreme Court of the Hnited States Albert E. Cuneo, Petitioner, vs. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Respondent. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI Albert E. Cuneo 5245 Baptist Road Pittsburgh, Pa 15236 (412) 886-1722 PRESENTATION OF QUESTIONS FOR REVIEW 1. Was the petitioner afforded due process or compulsory process under the United States Constitution in a criminal action, filed by a state in connection with a motor vehicle law? 2. Did the petitioner receive appropriate discharge of judicial claims as presented by law, for services rendered under the laws of the state, or in consequence of any act, law or treaty of the United States as guaranteed by Article IV section 2 paragraph 3? 3. Were the petitioners rights properly administered by the court of the state under Article VII amendments IV, V, and VI of the Constitution of the United States, summarizing rights of a defendant on accusation in all criminal prosecutions? 4. Was the petitioner subject to violations of constitutional guarantees given under the Constitution of the United States Article VII amendments VIII, XIII and XIV? D. Did the petitioner receive appropriate judicial administration under the Constitution of Pennsylvania as set forth in Article 1 through 27, and Article 5 section 9? 6. Does a state in prosecuting and accused enter a judicial proceeding on the basis of being similarly situated with an accused in any prosecution containing a series of charges or related events? Cn a ee ee a TABLE OF CONTENTS Cover page Questions for Review ..........2008- i. Table of Contentea «wc cee eee il Tables of Authorities .............. ili | aes OF PUTAMEN NS eee cs 1. | Constitutional and Statutory References - Statement of the Case .............. 23. Reasons for granting the writ ......... ai. Cane i“ ttt 29. pt ee re ere es WS 30. AUG GB tsi‘é eiéC ee er 35. US tC aa ee ee O77. ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Federal Case References Alexander vs. Whitman, 114 F.2d 1392, certiorari denied 118 S.Ct. 367, 189 L.Ed.2d 286 =... ....... 27 Aponte vs. Scully, oS 27 Atwell vs. Blackburn, 800 F.2d, certiorari denied 107 S.Ct 13878, 480, U.S. 920, 94 Sa tit he wee we we ws 27 Associates General Contractors of California, Inc., vs. City and County of San Francisco eee tt —“(—t*st ww ww ew ee 27. Brandon vs. Dist. of Columbia Bd. of Parole, 734 F.2d 56, 236 U.S. App D.C. 155 certiorari denied 105 S.Ct 811, 469 U.S. 1127, 83 L.Ed.2d 804 on remand 631 F.Supp 435 affirmed 823 F.2d 644 262 U.S. aan 060C—C—tC—“—~SC*C*~S we wee wee <2 Collins vs. Kidd, D.C. Tex., 38 F.Supp. 634, 687 ......... 27. TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Federal Case References Dudosh vs. Warg, 668 F.Supp. 944 vacated 853 F.2d 917 certiorari denied 109 S.Ct 367, 102 L.Ed.2d 356 Erret vs. Commonwealth of Pa 713 F.Supp 837 Goshtasby vs. Bd. of Trustees for the University of Illinois, 141 F.3d 761 Garrity vs. State of N.J., U.S.N.J., 385 U.S. 493, 87 S.Ct. 616, 618, 17 L.Ed.2d 562 Hoffman vs. U.S., 767 F.2d 14381 Joyce vs. Mavromatis, 783 F.2d 56 Kaha vs. State of Minnesota, 580 F.Supp. 971 Keyes vs City of Albany, NY. 594 F.Supp. 1147 iv TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Federal Case References McGhee vs. Sipes, 68 S.Ct 836, 334 U.S. 1, 92 L.Ed. 1611, 3 ALR.2d 441 ~=—........... 27. People vs. Chambers, 56 Misc 2d 683, 289 NYS2d 804 j= ———— wcecvveee 28. People vs. Liaetta, 30 NY2d 68, 330 NYS2d 351, 281 NE2d 157 1972, certiorari denied 407 US 973, 32 L.Ed.2d 809 S.Ct. eS TS I Se viewer 28. Reeder vs. Kansas City Bd. of Police Commissioners 796 F.2d 1050, certiorari denied, 107 S.Ct 951, 479 US 1065, uae.) =6——“‘“‘“