No. 23-7717

Ledra A. Craig v. United States

Lower Court: Eighth Circuit
Docketed: 2024-06-13
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: compulsory-process confrontation-clause constitutional-rights criminal-conviction criminal-procedure criminal-procedure-rights cross-examination due-process right-to-counsel right-to-cross-examine
Key Terms:
SocialSecurity Securities
Latest Conference: 2024-09-30
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Can a defendant's conviction be sustained based on uncorroborated statements made during interrogation?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED | 1. Can a Defendawts Conwetion be Sustained and impermissiby Prediedted on a defendants Uncorroborated statements ta Laterragition oF Ficers. * oes there Need We be an agreement an a Necessary link between et defendant aud at bene meatal that hae Never been inclivted oc identiRled and didnt appear a ge tes iMonY that a Conspiracy existed with defendantwith N eat Coniston Pst Upen “Text Messages Found in Delendants ceil phone 2 Prook oF the Ruthor oF Messages who Sent or Recieved the Messages. opportunite Te Rights te Face hig aceuser be Noolated by Not Haw ng, the 4 FO question bis alledoged CoConspicator in Tesa). . bo fins b Anendmeat oF the United states Constitution be Vis lated Atd not He ving ihe artotneg Net being Able to Cross Examine witnesses At tric] Wal Doe oe ‘Pher varty to Ceoss Examine witnesses Ab Nodime prion ta edad dae having No information on the Existanee oF Suey: =f no V4 Alledyed To be Defendants CoConspi ort vel Pe PESO whe 1s Dif€icult +e Provide clefendaut we, Wech May Have Made it Very endar with eFFectve ASS Stange in teal, ) & L5 A Defendants 5M A d 1 ion ag mendoent Wolated by Arresting | ; Ordering +he Bail Booking oF Fivers-to Restore 3 rate 4 Defendant, and Not alow" : S$ to Nestea} His phone Calls 3 daus d owag Dim te Gall a Attorney bebe betna = Foe < ays an 4. LE TE Defendant Rigint to Counsel We) be po being interrogated. : t toteccogation OF Ficers admit ‘0 Defendants Supression Heacinn + Vhey instucted the Jail to Resteict ait outas: Pression cacing that Hindered From asserting lis Right to Co Taal eis £2 Hat Defeodant 9 ; : . iv) s ; 5 . Defendants Aight ty have Cowart i" set behacte eves, A Violation oF 8. Does Exclusion oF +he festimos by ; Le errogation. Defendunts Faice Confession deprive a Me een stances oF aA whether Under the Due Process Clause of th > vedemental Constit iow RightCompulsory, Process oF the ConF rotation Che ene Aexendment o¢ Under the Face opportunrty, to Present q Defense. © ar He San awcadment. TE A

Docket Entries

2024-10-07
Petition DENIED.
2024-06-27
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/30/2024.
2024-06-21
Waiver of United States of right to respond submitted.
2024-06-21
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2024-05-23
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due July 15, 2024)

Attorneys

Ledra A. Craig
Ledra A. Craig — Petitioner
Ledra A. Craig — Petitioner
United States
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Respondent
Elizabeth B. PrelogarSolicitor General, Respondent