No. 22-6615
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: constitutional-rights criminal-procedure due-process evidence-admissibility evidence-presentation fair-trial improper-evidence reasonable-doubt sentencing trial-fairness
Latest Conference:
2023-02-17
Question Presented (from Petition)
I. Whether The Court Violated Jim's Constitutional Rights To Due Process & A Fair Trial By Allowing Improper Evidence & Preventing Him From Presenting Evidence In His Defense?
II. Whether There Was Insufficient Evidence Presented At Trial To Convict Jim Beyond A Reasonable Doubt Of The Charges?
III. Whether It Was Plain Error When Jim's Counsel Failed To Make A Rule 29 Motion To The Court?
IV. Whether The District Court Erred In Sentencing Jim To Life Imprisonment On Counts 1 & 2?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the court violated Jim's constitutional rights to due process and a fair trial by allowing improper evidence and preventing him from presenting evidence in his defense?
Docket Entries
2023-02-21
Petition DENIED.
2023-02-02
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/17/2023.
2023-01-27
Waiver of right of respondent United States of America to respond filed.
2023-01-19
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due February 23, 2023)
Attorneys
Robert Jim
Florence M. Bruemmer — Law Office of Florence M. Bruemmer, P.C., Petitioner
United States of America
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent