No. 18-5912
Robert Kimmell v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: criminal-defense criminal-procedure criminal-procedure-disclosure drug-offense due-process fair-trial informant informant-disclosure jury-instructions lesser-included-offense relevance verdict-form witness-disclosure
Latest Conference:
2018-10-05
Question Presented (from Petition)
Did Kimmell establish that disclosure of the informant was relevant and helpful to his defense, or essential to a fair determination of his cause?
Did the district court err by failing to provide the jury with a uniform and non-confusing special verdict form addressing the lesser included offenses for all drug counts, after the jury twice communicated their confusion on how to indicate the lesser included possession offense on the verdict form?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Did Kimmell establish that disclosure of the informant was relevant and helpful to his defense, or essential to a fair determination of his cause?
Docket Entries
2018-10-09
Petition DENIED.
2018-09-20
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/5/2018.
2018-09-17
Waiver of right of respondent United States of America to respond filed.
2018-08-30
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due October 10, 2018)
Attorneys
Robert Kimmell
Robert Kimmell — Petitioner
United States of America
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent