No. 23-5063
Bradley M. Cox v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: compulsory-process constitutional-rights criminal-procedure due-process federal-criminal-procedure interstate-commerce interstate-nexus judgment-of-acquittal motion-for-judgment-of-acquittal sufficiency-of-evidence threat-of-damage
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
SocialSecurity Securities Immigration
Latest Conference:
2023-09-26
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Question not identified
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED (continued) Other: 11. Does Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) apply to a defendant only or toa third-party as well? 12. Is a defendant's right to a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense infringed upon when admission of "reverse ~ .. 404(b) evidence" (third party guilt) is held to stricter stan; dards of relevancy than general 404(b) evidence? 13. When a motion to suppress is made during trial, should the trial judge ascertain if good-cause exists before denying it as untimely? ; 14. Is a motion untimely per Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12(c)(3) if the basis for the motion was not reasonably available prior to trial? = ~~
Docket Entries
2023-10-02
Petition DENIED.
2023-07-20
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/26/2023.
2023-07-17
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2023-07-03
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due August 9, 2023)
Attorneys
United States
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent