No. 22-844
Hamid Akhavan and Ruben Weigand v. United States
Tags: confrontation-clause criminal-procedure cross-examination exceptional-circumstances remote-testimony sixth-amendment trial-procedure
Key Terms:
JusticiabilityDoctri
JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference:
2023-06-15
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment is violated by denying a criminal defendant the right to cross-examine a key prosecution witness live in court
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTION PRESENTED Whether the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment is violated by denying a criminal defendant the right to cross-examine a key prosecution witness live in court—rather than via remote video feed—pursuant to a general allowance for remote testimony where a trial judge finds that “exceptional circumstances” exist and that remote testimony would “further the interest of justice.”
Docket Entries
2023-06-20
Petition DENIED.
2023-05-30
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/15/2023.
2023-05-25
Reply of petitioners Hamid Akhavan and Ruben Weigand filed.
2023-05-12
Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.
2023-04-21
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including May 12, 2023.
2023-04-19
Motion to extend the time to file a response from May 5, 2023 to May 12, 2023, submitted to The Clerk.
2023-03-29
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including May 5, 2023.
2023-03-28
Motion to extend the time to file a response from April 5, 2023 to May 5, 2023, submitted to The Clerk.
2023-03-02
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 5, 2023)
Attorneys
Hamid Akhavan and Ruben Weigand
Derek L. Shaffer — Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Petitioner
Derek L. Shaffer — Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent