No. 20-5793
Francisco Zendejas v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: confidential-informant criminal-defendant disclosure disclosure-motion due-process-rights in-camera-hearing roviaro-standard roviaro-v-united-states threshold-showing
Key Terms:
Environmental SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
Environmental SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
Latest Conference:
2020-10-16
Question Presented (AI Summary)
When a criminal defendant moves to disclose the identity of a confidential informant under Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 58 (1957), and makes a threshold showing—unrebutted by the government—that disclosure is relevant and helpful to a defense, may a court deny the motion without holding an in camera hearing?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED When a criminal defendant moves to disclose the identity of a confidential informant under Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 58 (1957), and makes a threshold showing—unrebutted by the government—that disclosure is relevant and helpful to a defense, may a court deny the motion without holding an in camera hearing? prefix PARTIES,
Docket Entries
2020-10-19
Petition DENIED.
2020-10-01
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/16/2020.
2020-09-29
Waiver of right of respondent United States of America to respond filed.
2020-09-17
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due October 26, 2020)
Attorneys
Francisco Zendejas
Harini P. Raghupathi — Federal Defender of San Diego Inc., Petitioner
Harini P. Raghupathi — Federal Defender of San Diego Inc., Petitioner
United States of America
Jeffrey B. Wall — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent
Jeffrey B. Wall — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent