No. 21-5748
Kyle Evan Peterson v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: child-pornography circuit-split criminal-procedure exclusionary-rule knowledge-element plea-bargaining plea-colloquy post-hoc-warrant united-states-v-x-citement-video
Key Terms:
FourthAmendment CriminalProcedure
FourthAmendment CriminalProcedure
Latest Conference:
2021-11-05
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the district judge must explain the knowledge element in a child pornography plea colloquy
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1. The Sixth and Ninth Circuits are split on whether, during a plea colloquy in a child pornography case, the district judge must explain to the defendant the knowledge element as interpreted by this Court in United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc., 513 U.S. 64 (1994). The Sixth Circuit has answered in the affirmative, the Ninth in the negative. 2. Whether, after the district court has ordered evidence suppressed, the government can circumvent the exclusionary rule by obtaining a post-hoc warrant from a different judge. --prefix-
Docket Entries
2021-11-08
Petition DENIED.
2021-10-21
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/5/2021.
2021-10-13
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2021-09-15
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due October 22, 2021)
Attorneys
Kyle Evan Peterson
Devin Jai Burstein — Warren & Burstein, Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent