No. 21-8089
Darrell E. Gillespie v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: §924(c)-offense 924c categorical-approach civil-rights conspiracy crime-of-violence criminal-procedure davis-precedent due-process force-elements-clause pinkerton-liability
Key Terms:
JusticiabilityDoctri
JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference:
2022-09-28
Question Presented (from Petition)
The question presented is whether, after Davis, the invocation of Pinkerton theory of liability by the government, without more, obviates the government's requirement to satisfy the force/elements clause and allows the government to prosecute a §924(c) offense based upon allegations and evidence that the defendant was engaged in a conspiracy?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the invocation of Pinkerton theory of liability by the government, without more, obviates the government's requirement to satisfy the force/elements clause and allows the prosecution of a §924(c) offense based on allegations and evidence that the defendant was engaged in a conspiracy
Docket Entries
2022-10-03
Petition DENIED.
2022-06-16
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/28/2022.
2022-06-10
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2022-06-06
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due July 8, 2022)
Attorneys
Darrell Gillespie
John H. Tinney Jr. — Hendrickson & Long, PLLC, Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent