No. 21-6919
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: criminal-jurisdiction criminal-procedure evidence-of-continuous-excitement excited-utterance federal-criminal-jurisdiction federal-evidence-rule federal-rules-of-evidence hearsay-exception indian-country-status indian-law pueblo-lands-act
Key Terms:
Patent
Patent
Latest Conference:
2022-02-18
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether a hearsay statement may be properly admitted as an excited utterance
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW I. Whether a hearsay statement may be properly admitted as an excited utterance under Fed. R. Evid. 803(2) without evidence that the declarant was under a continuous state of excitement from the time of the startling event through the time of the statement. I. Whether the issuance of patents to non-Indians for land within the exterior boundaries of the Ohkay Owingeh Pueblo under the 1924 Pueblo Lands Act, relinquishing all federal claims and extinguishing the interest of the pueblo, precluded the exercise of federal criminal jurisdiction in light of the understanding at the time that Indian country status was terminated. i
Docket Entries
2022-02-22
Petition DENIED.
2022-01-27
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/18/2022.
2022-01-25
Waiver of right of respondent United States of America to respond filed.
2022-01-18
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due February 22, 2022)
Attorneys
Kevin Vigil
United States of America
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent