No. 24-6558

Mauricio Gonzalez v. United States

Lower Court: Eleventh Circuit
Docketed: 2025-02-13
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: criminal-procedure due-process eleventh-circuit judicial-notice statutory-interpretation witness-testimony
Key Terms:
Immigration
Latest Conference: 2025-03-21
Question Presented (from Petition)

1. Whether the Eleventh Circuit erred in including the Government's post-trial misinterpretation of Florida Statute § 794.05 and 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a), despite precedent in United States v. Scrushy, 721 F.3d 1288 (11th Cir.), requiring consideration of such evidence when it could produce a different outcome.

2. Whether the Eleventh Circuit misapplied the "use of a minor" element under 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2)(A) and 18 U.S.C. § 2423, conflicting with United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc., 513 U.S. 64 (1994), which requires that the minor be actively employed, persuaded, or coerced in the production of illicit material.

3. Whether the Eleventh Circuit erred in denying Petitioner's request for judicial notice of Florida Statute § 794.05's 1996 amendment which limited its applicability to individuals over 24 years old, despite the court's duty under Bryant v. Avado Brands, Inc., 187 F.3d 1271 (11th Cir. 1999), to take judicial notice of adjudicative facts beyond reasonable dispute.

4. Whether the Eleventh Circuit improperly invoked the "law of the case" doctrine to preclude reconsideration of issues that were not fully litigated in prior proceedings, conflicting with Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605 (1983), and United States v. Palmer, 16 U.S. 610 (1818), which require that courts adhere to clear statutory language when interpreting criminal liability.

5. Whether the Government's actions in pressuring a witness, as documented in the sworn affidavit of Alexus Smith, violated due process and led to a fundamentally unfair trial, necessitating a new trial under the principles established in Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959), and United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985).

6. Whether the coercive pressure applied by the Government, which led the key witness to attempt suicide due to threats of prosecution, deportation, and psychological manipulation, irreparably tainted her testimony, violating Petitioner's right to a fair trial.

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the Eleventh Circuit erred in multiple legal interpretations regarding statutory application and judicial procedure in a criminal case involving a minor

Docket Entries

2025-03-24
Petition DENIED.
2025-02-27
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/21/2025.
2025-02-21
Waiver of United States of right to respond submitted.
2025-02-21
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2025-02-04
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due March 17, 2025)

Attorneys

Mauricio Gonzalez
Mauricio Gonzalez — Petitioner
United States
Sarah M. HarrisActing Solicitor General, Respondent