No. 23-7592
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: bruton-rule bruton-v-united-states co-defendant-statements confrontation-clause constitutional-rights criminal-procedure fifth-amendment fifth-circuit testimonial-evidence testimonial-statements unavailable-witnesses
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity DueProcess
SocialSecurity DueProcess
Latest Conference:
2024-09-30
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Was Ms. Diggs's constitutional right to confrontation violated?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW WAS MS. DIGGS’S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO CONFRONTATION VIOLATED WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT ADMITTED RECORDED STATEMENTS OF UNAVAILABLE CODEFENDANTS INTO EVIDENCE OVER HER OBJECTION? DID THE ADMISSION OF THE RECORDED STATEMENTS BY UNAVAILABLE CO-DEFENDANTS VIOLATE THIS COURT’S RULING IN BRUTON V. UNITED STATES, 391 U.S. 123(1968) ? DID THE FIFTH CIRCUIT ERR BY HOLDING THAT THE RECORDED STATEMENTS OF THE UNAVAILABLE CODEFENDANTS WERE NON TESTIMONIAL AND THUS NOT PROHIBITED BY THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE? i
Docket Entries
2024-10-07
Petition DENIED.
2024-06-20
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/30/2024.
2024-06-13
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2024-05-21
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due July 1, 2024)
Attorneys
United States
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Respondent
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent
Ynedra Diggs
Amy Ruth Blalock — Blalock Law Firm, Petitioner
Amy Ruth Blalock — Blalock Law Firm, Petitioner