No. 18-5912
Robert Kimmell v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: criminal-defense criminal-procedure criminal-procedure-disclosure drug-offense due-process fair-trial informant informant-disclosure jury-instructions lesser-included-offense relevance verdict-form witness-disclosure
Key Terms:
DueProcess
DueProcess
Latest Conference:
2018-10-05
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Did Kimmell establish that disclosure of the informant was relevant and helpful to his defense, or essential to a fair determination of his cause?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION(S) PRESENTED : I. Did Kimmell establish that disclosure of the. informant was relevant and helpful to his defense, or essential to a fair determination of his cause? ; ' II. Did the district court err by failing to provide the jury with a uniform and non-confusing special verdict form addressing the lesser included offenses for all drug counts, after the . jury twice communicated their confusion on how to indicate the lesser included possession offense on the verdict form? oo } \ . : (4) oe
Docket Entries
2018-10-09
Petition DENIED.
2018-09-20
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/5/2018.
2018-09-17
Waiver of right of respondent United States of America to respond filed.
2018-08-30
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due October 10, 2018)
Attorneys
Robert Kimmell
Robert Kimmell — Petitioner
United States of America
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent