No. 18-7430
Mohamed Abdihamid Farah v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: appellate-review criminal-procedure due-process harmless-error jury-instructions specific-intent trial-by-jury witness-credibility
Key Terms:
DueProcess JusticiabilityDoctri
DueProcess JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference:
2019-02-22
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the failure to include in jury instructions the required element of specific intent is subject to harmless error analysis where the element is in dispute?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1. WHETHER THE FAILURE TO INCLUDE IN JURY INSTRUCTIONS THE REQUIRED ELEMENT OF SPECIFIC INTENT IS SUBJECT TO HARMLESS ERROR ANALYSIS WHERE THE ELEMENT IS IN DISPUTE? 2. WHETHER AN APPELLATE COURT’S DETERMINATION OF WITNESS CREDIBILITY IN APPLYING HARMLESS ERROR ANALYSIS VIOLATES AN ACCUSED’S RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS AND TRIAL BY JURY? ii
Docket Entries
2019-02-25
Petition DENIED.
2019-02-07
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/22/2019.
2019-01-30
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2019-01-10
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due February 14, 2019)
Attorneys
United States
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent