No. 20-6927
Anthony Freeney v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: 18-usc-3553a audio-recordings criminal-procedure due-process evidence-sufficiency jail-phone-calls jury-instructions jury-verdict sentencing standard-of-review sufficiency-of-evidence
Key Terms:
Privacy
Privacy
Latest Conference:
2021-02-19
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Was the evidence insufficient to sustain the jury's guilty verdict?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW QUESTION #1 WAS THE EVIDENCE INSUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN THE JURY’S GUILTY VERDICT? QUESTION #2 DID THE DISTRICT COURT ERR IN ADMITTING AUDIO RECORDINGS OF MR. FREENEY’S JAIL PHONE CALLS? QUESTION #3 DID THE SENTENCE IMPOSED BY THE DISTRICT COURT UNREASONABLE BECAUSE IT IS GREATER THAN NECESSARY TO ACCOMPLISH THE GOALS OF 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)? ii
Docket Entries
2021-02-22
Petition DENIED.
2021-02-04
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/19/2021.
2021-02-02
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2021-01-11
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due February 24, 2021)
Attorneys
Anthony Freeney
Amy R Blalock — Blalock Law Firm, Petitioner
Amy R Blalock — Blalock Law Firm, Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Acting Solicitor General, Respondent