No. 22-844
Hamid Akhavan and Ruben Weigand v. United States
Tags: confrontation-clause criminal-procedure cross-examination exceptional-circumstances remote-testimony sixth-amendment trial-procedure
Latest Conference:
2023-06-15
Question Presented (from Petition)
Whether the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment is violated by denying a criminal defendant the right to cross-examine a key prosecution witness live in court—rather than via remote video feed—pursuant to a general allowance for remote testimony where a trial judge finds that "exceptional circumstances" exist and that remote testimony would "further the interest of justice."
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment is violated by denying a criminal defendant the right to cross-examine a key prosecution witness live in court
Docket Entries
2023-06-20
Petition DENIED.
2023-05-30
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/15/2023.
2023-05-25
Reply of petitioners Hamid Akhavan and Ruben Weigand filed.
2023-05-12
Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.
2023-04-21
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including May 12, 2023.
2023-04-19
Motion to extend the time to file a response from May 5, 2023 to May 12, 2023, submitted to The Clerk.
2023-03-29
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including May 5, 2023.
2023-03-28
Motion to extend the time to file a response from April 5, 2023 to May 5, 2023, submitted to The Clerk.
2023-03-02
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 5, 2023)
Attorneys
Hamid Akhavan and Ruben Weigand
Derek L. Shaffer — Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent