No. 19-5522
Berson Marius v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: criminal-procedure due-process factual-proffer ineffective-assistance ineffective-assistance-of-counsel judicial-conduct judicial-fact-finding plea-bargaining rule-11
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity Immigration
SocialSecurity Immigration
Latest Conference:
2019-10-01
Question Presented (from Petition)
WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT JUDGE CAN ELICITE
ADDITIONAL FACTS DURING A FACTUAL PROFFER, AND
WHETHER COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF
COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL
FOR FAILING TO OBJECT WHEN THE COURT ELICITED
ADDITIONAL FACTS DURING A FACTUAL PROFFER
WHETHER A VIOLATION OF RULE 11 OF THE FEDERAL
RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE WHEN THE DISTRICT
COURT JUDGE ELICITED ADDITIONAL FACTS DURING
THE FACTUAL PROFFER
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the district court judge can elicit additional facts during a factual proffer
Docket Entries
2019-10-07
Petition DENIED.
2019-08-29
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/1/2019.
2019-08-21
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2019-07-22
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due September 9, 2019)
Attorneys
Berson Marius
Berson Marius — Petitioner
United States
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent