No. 23-6588
Aaron Ramirez Espinoza v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: co-conspirator conspiracy criminal-evidence criminal-law due-process evidence government-informant sufficiency-of-evidence testimony witness-testimony
Key Terms:
DueProcess
DueProcess
Latest Conference:
2024-03-01
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether a government informant and co-conspirators testimony of another's involvement in the conspiracy is sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether a government informant and co-conspirators testimony of another’s involvement in the conspiracy is sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction? ii
Docket Entries
2024-03-04
Petition DENIED.
2024-02-15
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/1/2024.
2024-02-08
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2024-01-22
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due February 26, 2024)
Attorneys
Aaron Espinoza
Robert Henry Branom Jr. — Federal Defenders of Montana, Petitioner
Robert Henry Branom Jr. — Federal Defenders of Montana, Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent