No. 25-5515
Jessie Smith, III v. United States
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: brady-disclosure constitutional-safeguards criminal-procedure due-process revocation-hearing supervised-release
Key Terms:
DueProcess HabeasCorpus
DueProcess HabeasCorpus
Latest Conference:
2025-10-10
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Does the Due Process Clause require that district courts apply the constitutional safeguards of Brady v. Maryland when a defendant faces a revocation of supervised release based on allegations of new and unproven criminal conduct?
Question Presented (OCR Extract)
Does the Due Process Clause require that district courts apply the constitutional safeguards of Brady v. Maryland when a defendant faces a revocation of supervised release based on allegations of new and unproven criminal conduct? prefixPARTIES,
Docket Entries
2025-10-14
Petition DENIED.
2025-09-25
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/10/2025.
2025-09-23
Waiver of United States of right to respond submitted.
2025-09-23
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2025-08-25
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due October 2, 2025)
Attorneys
Jessie Smith
Ryan W Stitt — Stitt Vu Trial Lawyers APC, Petitioner
Ryan W Stitt — Stitt Vu Trial Lawyers APC, Petitioner
United States
D. John Sauer — Solicitor General, Respondent
D. John Sauer — Solicitor General, Respondent