No. 25-6567
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: edwards-rule evidence-suppression fourth-amendment interrogation-violation poisonous-tree-doctrine right-to-counsel
Key Terms:
FifthAmendment DueProcess CriminalProcedure Privacy
FifthAmendment DueProcess CriminalProcedure Privacy
Latest Conference:
2026-02-20
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Where the police violated the rule announced in Edwards v. Arizona by continuing to question petitioner after she twice invoked her right to counsel, should evidence seized from petitioner's cell phone as a direct result of that violation have been suppressed under the poisonous tree doctrine?
Docket Entries
2026-01-29
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/20/2026.
2026-01-21
Waiver of United States of right to respond submitted.
2026-01-21
Waiver of right of respondent United States to respond filed.
2026-01-08
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due February 12, 2026)
Attorneys
Rajeri Curry
Gilbert J Scutti — Law Office of Gilbert J. Scutti, Petitioner
Gilbert J Scutti — Law Office of Gilbert J. Scutti, Petitioner
Gilbert J Scutti — Law Office of Gilbert J. Scutti, Petitioner
United States
D. John Sauer — Solicitor General, Respondent
D. John Sauer — Solicitor General, Respondent
D. John Sauer — Solicitor General, Respondent