No. 21-7133
Francis P. Salemme v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: accessorial-liability accessory-after-the-fact aiding-and-abetting criminal-procedure due-process jury-instruction jury-instructions legal-precedent middleton-v-mcneil
Key Terms:
JusticiabilityDoctri
JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference:
2022-03-18
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the jury instruction regarding accessorial liability that fails to distinguish between aiding and abetting liability and accessory after the fact liability (as requested by petitioner) is in conflict with, inter alia, Middleton v. McNeil, 541 U.S. 433 (2004)
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED Whether the jury instruction regarding accessorial liability that fails to distinguish between aiding and abetting liability and accessory after the fact liability (as requested by petitioner) is in conflict with, inter alia, Middleton v. McNeil, 541 U.S. 433 (2004).
Docket Entries
2022-03-21
Petition DENIED.
2022-03-03
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/18/2022.
2022-02-23
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2022-02-11
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due March 18, 2022)
Attorneys
Francis P. Salemme
Lawrence D. Gerzog — Law Offices of Lawrence D. Gerzog, Petitioner
Lawrence D. Gerzog — Law Offices of Lawrence D. Gerzog, Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent