No. 22-7878
Kenny Eugene Smart v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: 18-usc-922(g) criminal-procedure evidence-standard evidentiary-rulings federal-rule-of-evidence-404(b) federal-rules-of-evidence prior-convictions rule-404b rule-of-inclusion standard-of-review statutory-interpretation
Key Terms:
DueProcess
DueProcess
Latest Conference:
2023-09-26
Question Presented (AI Summary)
What is the proper standard of review of evidentiary rulings under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) and is Rule 404(b) a rule of inclusion which always allows the nature of prior convictions in trials for alleged violations of 18 USC §922(g)?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1. WHAT IS THE PROPER STANDARD OF REVIEW OF EVIDENTIARY RULINGS UNDER FEDERAL RULE OF EVIDENCE 404(b) AND IS RULE 404(b) A RULE OF INCLUSION WHICH ALWAYS ALLOWS THE NATURE OF PRIOR CONVICTIONS IN TRIALS FOR ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF 18 USC §922(g)? 2. WHAT IS THE CORRECT STANDARD OF REVIEW FOR DENIALS OF MOTIONS FOR NEW TRIAL BASED ON BRADY v. MARYLAND VIOLATIONS?
Docket Entries
2023-10-02
Petition DENIED.
2023-07-06
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/26/2023.
2023-06-29
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2023-06-22
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due July 27, 2023)
Attorneys
Kenny Eugene Smart
Angela L. Campbell — Dickey, Campbell & Sahag Law Firm, PLC, Petitioner
Angela L. Campbell — Dickey, Campbell & Sahag Law Firm, PLC, Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent