No. 22-6519
Thomas Alan Arthur v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: civil-rights criminal-defense defendant-rights due-process evidence-exclusion free-speech harmful-error harmless-error judicial-review miller-test obscenity obscenity-standard
Latest Conference:
2023-02-17
Question Presented (from Petition)
1. Should this Court adopt the Seventh Circuit's rule that where a district court erroneously excludes evidence that makes up the entirety of a defendant's defense, harmful error must be presumed, particularly in obscenity cases?
2. Does the Miller test adequately express this Court's standard for determining whether material is obscene, particularly text only material or material which depicts fictional characters engaged in sexual conduct?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Should this Court adopt the Seventh Circuit's rule that where a district court erroneously excludes evidence that makes up the entirety of a defendant's defense, harmful error must be presumed, particularly in obscenity cases?
Docket Entries
2023-02-21
Petition DENIED.
2023-01-19
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/17/2023.
2023-01-17
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2023-01-09
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due February 10, 2023)
Attorneys
Thomas Alan Arthur
Lane Andrew Haygood — Haygood Law Firm, Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent