No. 18-7151

Curtis John Mulhern v. Pennsylvania

Lower Court: Pennsylvania
Docketed: 2018-12-20
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
IFP
Tags: 2nd-amendment civil-rights confidential-informant criminal-enterprise due-process entrapment law-enforcement outrageous-conduct outrageous-government-conduct probable-cause reverse-sting
Key Terms:
Arbitration DueProcess CriminalProcedure Privacy
Latest Conference: 2019-02-22
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Did law enforcement conduct become constitutionally unacceptable where government-agents-and-confidential-informant-engineered-criminal-enterprise

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED Did law enforcement conduct become constitutionally unacceptable where _ government agents and their confidential informant essentially engineered and = directed the criminal enterprise from start to finish of carrying a firearm without a a license . Generation of new crimes merely for the sake of pressing criminal charges against the defendant also constitutes outrageous government conduct, : at least where the government essentially manufactured the crime from start to . finish. Especially where reverse sting operation for carrying a firearm for purposes of sale is dependent upon a standard of probable cause with a totality of circumstances scenario, not so far reaching into violation of second amendment latitude that afford lawful conduct and lawful travel based upon specifically the : . circumstances surrounding petitioners case and the circumstances involved that : the artful and designing minds at the Lackawanna County Courthouse damage : ‘ _controlled so much of the truth determining process from start to finish that.a . gross miscarriage of justice stopped the petitioner from asserting constitutional : errors and violations at trial and warrant new trial or sentence vacated and set aside for purposes of the ends of justice. Should indictment against petitioner be dismissed due to outrageous 7 . government conduct and due process in petitioner's case rise to this defense rather than the defense of entrapment which does not present to ’ the jury the known characteristics of the defendant, the individualized suspicion of the defendant and the government's role in creating the crime of conviction and the governments on going encouragement of defendant through derivative entrapment via the confidential informant to commit the offense conduct and the nature of the government's participation in the offense conduct and finally the . nature of the crime being pursued and necessity for the actions taken in light of the nature of the criminal enterprise at issue, in which in this instant case, law _4 enforcement were acting on a hunch and trolling for anything the confidential : informant could dig up and concoct together. ;

Docket Entries

2019-02-25
Petition DENIED.
2019-02-07
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/22/2019.
2018-07-29
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due January 22, 2019)

Attorneys

Curtis J. Mulhern
Curtis Mulhern — Petitioner
Curtis Mulhern — Petitioner