No. 18-9600
Patricia Diane Smith Sledge v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: appellate-review criminal-procedure district-court due-process evidence-rules evidentiary-ruling federal-rules-of-evidence procedural-error sufficiency-of-evidence summary-evidence witness-tampering
Key Terms:
Environmental SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
Environmental SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
Latest Conference:
2019-10-01
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Did the district court prejudicially err when admitting Exhibit 1 as a summary pursuant to Fed Rules of Evidence, rule 1006?
Question Presented (from Petition)
Question Presented For Review Did the district court prejudicially err when admitting Exhibit 1 as a summary pursuant to Fed Rules of Evidence, rule 1006? Was the evidence sufficient to support the witness tampering convictions? ii
Docket Entries
2019-10-07
Petition DENIED.
2019-06-20
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/1/2019.
2019-06-13
Waiver of right of respondent United States of America to respond filed.
2019-06-05
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due July 10, 2019)
Attorneys
Patricia Sledge
Karren Kenney — Kenney Legal Defense, Petitioner
Karren Kenney — Kenney Legal Defense, Petitioner
United States of America
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent
Noel J. Francisco — Solicitor General, Respondent