No. 23-5034
Omar Francisco Orduno-Ramirez v. United States
IFP
Tags: attorney-client-privilege confidential-communications due-process prosecutorial-misconduct sentencing sentencing-phase sixth-amendment structural-error
Key Terms:
HabeasCorpus
HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference:
2023-11-03
Question Presented (from Petition)
When prosecutors intentionally and without any legitimate law-enforcement
justification access confidential attorney-client communications before sentencing, do
the prosecutors thereby commit structural Sixth Amendment error?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
When prosecutors intentionally and without any legitimate law-enforcement justification access confidential attorney-client communications before sentencing, do the prosecutors thereby commit structural Sixth Amendment error?
Docket Entries
2023-11-06
Petition DENIED. Justice Gorsuch took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
2023-10-19
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/3/2023.
2023-10-11
Reply of petitioner Omar Francisco Orduno-Ramirez filed.
2023-10-05
Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.
2023-08-29
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including October 5, 2023.
2023-08-28
Motion to extend the time to file a response from September 5, 2023 to October 5, 2023, submitted to The Clerk.
2023-07-27
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including September 5, 2023. See Rule 30.1.
2023-07-26
Motion to extend the time to file a response from August 4, 2023 to September 4, 2023, submitted to The Clerk.
2023-06-30
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due August 4, 2023)
Attorneys
Omar Orduno-Ramirez
Paige A. Nichols — Office of the Federal Public Defender, Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent