No. 20-6044
Luidgi Benjamin v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: character-evidence character-testimony criminal-procedure district-court-jurisdiction due-process enticement evidentiary-admission judicial-discretion jury-instructions venue venue-challenge
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
Latest Conference:
2020-11-13
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Should venue be proper where no elements of the crime occurred?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Should certiorari be granted where venue was laid in the Southern District of New York, even though no elements of the crime occurred there, including enticement? 2. Should certiorari be granted because a jury cannot be deemed to have disregarded a court’s admonition not to consider what even the District Court conceded was a mistakenly admitted admission of guilt? 3. Should certiorari be granted because the government placed Petitioner’s character in issue, in its case-in-chief, by eliciting from Darryn Denver that he had a reputation as a “swindler,” to prove he acted in conformity with that trait? i
Docket Entries
2020-11-16
Petition DENIED.
2020-10-29
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/13/2020.
2020-10-21
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2020-09-16
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due November 16, 2020)
Attorneys
Arza Feldman & Feldman, et al.
Arza Rayches Feldman — Feldman & Feldman, Petitioner
United States
Jeffrey B. Wall — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent