Ivan Eberhart a Chicago man and father four has filed, Pro Se, a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, which presented three questions:
1) Whether the Seventh Circuit Appellate Court contradicted rulings of this Court and other circuits, including itself, by denying a certificate of appealibility when District Court denied petitioner’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim without holding an evidentiary hearing.
Justice Thurgood Marshall predicted in his dissent in the landmark Strickland v. Washington Supreme Court decision that there would be too much of a variance between circuits in identifying when counsel's performance was "below reasonable standards" and Mr. Eberhart contends that granting cert in this case would give the Supreme Court the opportunity to remove the vagueness that surrounds the Strickland ruling.
2)Whether the Seventh Circuit departed from this Court’s ruling and the rulings of other circuits in determining what constitutes actual innocence?
Eberhart points out that Judge Zagel, in granting a new trial which the appellate court overturned, stated in granting the trial and in sentencing after the appellate ruling that "Ivan Eberhart did not receive a fair trial and deserves a new one."
3)Whether the Seventh Circuit erred in determining that employing a special verdict form as an end-run around this Court’s rulings in Apprendi and Booker, is not a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
http://criminaljustice.change.org/actions/view/investigate_ivan_eberharts_wrongful_conviction.
In addition, Emma Young's blog can be accessed at http;//hope4justice.typepad.com