No. 23-5838
Mario Reynoso, aka Mario Hernandez v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: admissibility-of-evidence character-evidence district-court-discretion district-courts evidence-admissibility federal-rules-of-evidence non-propensity-purpose reasoning rule-404(b)(2) rule-404b ultimate-decision
Key Terms:
FifthAmendment
FifthAmendment
Latest Conference:
2023-11-09
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether Rule 404(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Evidence permits district courts the use of reasoning to reach an ultimate decision whether to admit the same evidence for a purpose?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED Whether Rule 404(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Evidence permits district courts the use of reasoning to reach an ultimate decision whether to admit the same evidence for a purpose? -i
Docket Entries
2023-11-13
Petition DENIED.
2023-10-25
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/9/2023.
2023-10-23
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2023-10-16
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due November 20, 2023)
Attorneys
Mario Reynoso
Kari Schmidt — Conlee Schmidt & Emerson LLP, Petitioner
Kari Schmidt — Conlee Schmidt & Emerson LLP, Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent