No. 24-6109
Kevin Lewis and Otis Ponds v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: criminal-procedure department-of-justice evidence-standard statutory-interpretation title-iii wiretap-authorization
Latest Conference:
2025-01-10
Question Presented (from Petition)
What evidence must the government present in a wiretap application to establish that an authorized official approved the application? And if a defendant makes a colorable argument that the application failed to establish that an authorized official in fact authorized it, what is the government's burden to rebut the defendant's claim?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
What evidence must the government present in a wiretap application to establish that an authorized official approved the application, and what is the government's burden to rebut a defendant's claim of unauthorized approval?
Docket Entries
2025-01-13
Petition DENIED.
2024-12-19
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/10/2025.
2024-12-13
Waiver of United States of right to respond submitted.
2024-12-13
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2024-12-05
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due January 9, 2025)
Attorneys
Otis Ponds, et al.
Lynn Christina Hartfield — Law Office of Lynn C. Hartfield, LLC, Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent