No. 23-5645
Robert Eugene Stallings v. United States
Tags: constitutional-challenge counterman-precedent criminal-intent criminal-procedure due-process first-amendment harmless-error jury-instruction jury-instructions procedural-error statutory-interpretation sufficiency-of-evidence
Latest Conference:
2023-10-27
Question Presented (from Petition)
Whether Counterman v. Colorado, decided after the decision below, shows that 18
U.S.C. §1038(a) should be read to require proof that the defendant intended to make
a reasonably believable threat?
Whether a defendant's concession that the evidence suffices to overcome a Jackson v.
Virginia challenge as to a single element of the crime necessarily implies that
procedural error cannot affect substantial rights?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether 18 U.S.C. §1038(a) requires proof of intent to make a reasonably believable threat
Docket Entries
2023-10-30
Petition DENIED.
2023-10-05
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/27/2023.
2023-09-28
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2023-09-21
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due October 26, 2023)
Attorneys
Robert Eugene Stallings
Kevin Joel Page — Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent