No. 22-7397
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: criminal-procedure criminal-speech due-process fighting-words first-amendment free-speech jury-determination jury-instructions speech-protection state-court true-threats
Latest Conference:
2023-06-15
Question Presented (from Petition)
1. Whether a state court is prohibited from unilaterally determining whether a defendant's written speech on his blog is protected or criminal, without having to submit that issue/defense to the jury.
2. Whether a state court must instruct a jury on the federal definitions of fighting words and true threats as well all federal standards for determining whether speech is criminal or protected when a defendant raises the First Amendment as a defense.
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether a state court is prohibited from unilaterally determining whether a defendant's written speech on his blog is protected or criminal, without having to submit that issue/defense to the jury
Docket Entries
2023-06-20
Petition DENIED.
2023-05-31
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/15/2023.
2023-05-24
Waiver of right of respondent Commonwealth of Massachusetts to respond filed.
2023-04-05
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due May 30, 2023)
Attorneys
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Anna E. Lumelsky — Massachusetts Attorney General's Office, Respondent
Daniel Kim
Brad P. Bennion — Law Office of Brad Bennion, Petitioner