Boston, MA (PRWEB) September 27, 2013
The Supreme Court Press, the leader in exquisite document preparation, legal printing, and filing with the Supreme Court of the United States is proud to name "Stogner v. Sturdivant & Mellerine" (Supreme Court Dkt. 12-1386) as its Petition of the Month for the month of September 2013. The Supreme Court Press worked with Attorney Peter Q. John of The “Q” Law Firm of Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on the preparation of this petition for a writ of certiorari.
The Stogner petition discusses an important federal question that is rife with conflicting interpretations in various courts – that is, whether law enforcement is entitled to qualified immunity when lethal force is used on a suspect that is not actively resisting, fleeing arrest, or posing a physical threat – a three part test enunciated by the Supreme Court in Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989). The Fifth Circuit in Stogner said “yes” when it granted qualified immunity, but a separate panel of the Fifth Circuit said “no” in a second case (Newman vs. Guedry, No. 11-41192, (5th Cir. 2012)), wherein the Fifth Circuit stated that the use of force against passive resistors did not entitle officers to qualified immunity.
In an interview with the Supreme Court Press, Attorney Peter Q. John described the importance of the case: “This case sheds much needed light on the ever-increasing tension between the rights of the individual citizens and that of the state. We must closely scrutinize every action of the police and law enforcement, and take the opportunity to protect ordinary citizens from them, because currently they have the most power in the entire judicial system.”
The Supreme Court Press worked closely with Mr. John on his petition, which was remarkable for its laser focus on a single issue. It was clear to us that Mr. John had the foresight to lay the groundwork for his appeal while he was trying the case in the district court. Mr. John spoke about his experience working with us. Mr. John stated, “The Supreme Court Press was more to us than just a printer. You helped us step back from our passion-driven sense of purpose to right this wrong. Between edits and suggestions, we were able to step back and re-look at our structure, focus, and content. More than just a press, Supreme Court Press was like a silent senior partner that raised our level of performance.”
Read the complete interview with Mr. John and learn more about the Stogner petition at: http://www.supremecourtpress.com/Stogner-Petition-Aug-2013.html
About the Supreme Court Press:
The Supreme Court Press specializes in the affordable preparation, printing, and filing of legal briefs in compliance with the rules of the United States Supreme Court. Any document filed with the high court must meet precise requirements on formatting, binding, and delivery. A non-compliant document can be rejected by the court, damaging or ending your client’s pursuit of justice. But that is only the tip of the iceberg of the value that we add - our expert team has the editorial talent and Supreme Court brief experience to provide meaningful, game changing suggestions to your document. We will work hand in hand with you to exquisitely prepare, edit, print, and file your documents, taking the worry out of the process for you, and improving your odds of getting in. Call us at 888-958-5705 or email us at firstname.lastname@example.org to discuss your filing needs. http://www.supremecourtpress.com
About the Petition of the Month(TM) :
The Supreme Court Press’ Petition of the Month program recognizes applicants to the Supreme Court with well-written petitions for writ of certiorari that address important questions of law. We look for cases that meet the criteria of Rule 10 of the United States Supreme Court – important issues where the underlying decision is in conflict with the Supreme Court, another Court of Appeals, or the United States Constitution. If you have a pending petition that you believe is worthy of Petition of the Month, you can email us at editor(at)supremecourtpress(dot)com
Disclaimers: The Supreme Court Press does not provide legal advice. The Supreme Court Press did not endorse either party in this matter and expresses no legal opinion on any case selected as Petition of the Month .