No. 19-7141
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: civil-rights constitutional-guarantee criminal-interpretation criminal-procedure due-process ex-post-facto free-speech legislative-intent lenity standing statutory-ambiguity statutory-construction
Latest Conference:
2020-02-21
Question Presented (from Petition)
When the legislature has met spoken in law eluent that is clear and definite and has at fixed the punishment for a offense duly and without ambiguity, can a state court in meet the ambiguity in a manner that is positive to the accused. When this court has also that absent congressional intent, ambiguity should be resolved in favor of lenity? See In re. Empress Stains, 249 U.S. 81 (cert'd).
Question Presented (AI Summary)
When the legislature has not spoken in language that is clear and definite and has affixed the punishment for an offense, can a state court limit the ambiguity in a manner that is punitive to the accused, when this court has held that absent congressional intent, ambiguity should be resolved in favor of lenity?
Docket Entries
2020-02-24
Petition DENIED.
2020-02-06
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/21/2020.
2020-01-31
Waiver of right of respondent Illinois to respond filed.
2019-12-18
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due February 3, 2020)
Attorneys
Fernando Oliveros
Fernando Oliveros — Petitioner
Illinois
Michael Marc Glick — Respondent