Head-to-head
Dennis Birkley, Petitioner v. United States, et al. vs. Dale D. Mitchell, Jr., Petitioner v. United States vs. David E. Jackson, III, Petitioner v. Indiana Parole Board
Criminal Procedure cases on the Supreme Court docket, side by side.
The matchup
Relationship
- Shared issue
- Criminal Procedure
- Why compared
- Reviewed Criminal Procedure tags connect these current-term public cases.
Questions presented
- Dennis Birkley, Petitioner v. United States, et al.
- 1. Whether Petitioner’s Sixth Amendment right to confrontation was violated when FBI Special Agent Kathryn Graham testified as a summary witness by summarizing the investigative findings, observations, and conclusions of other FBI agents who did not testify and were not subject to cross-examination — and whether the Seventh Circuit denied Petitioner meaningful review by failing to apply Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), to this preserved constitutional objection? 2. Whether the Ex Post Facto Clause of Article I, Section 9 was violated when Petitioner was convicted under an Indiana mechanic’s lien statute — Indiana Code § 9-22-6-2 — that became effective January 1, 2015, based on conduct occurring in 2013 and 2014, and whether the government’s retroactive application and retroactive redefinition of that statute’s meaning to characterize Petitioner’s lawful conduct as criminal, further compounded the constitutional violation? 3. Whether the Seventh Circuit’s complete failure to address Petitioner’s properly preserved constitutional claims — including Confrontation Clause and Ex Post Facto objections raised at trial, at sentencing, and on appeal — denied Petitioner his Fifth Amendment right to due process and meaningful appellate review, in a manner this Court’s supervisory authority requires it to correct?
- Dale D. Mitchell, Jr., Petitioner v. United States
- 1. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is constitutional in all its applications or is it subject to as-applied challenges? 2. If as-applied challenges are prohibited, is 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) facially invalid because it violates the Due Process Clause and is substantially overbroad? 3. Whether Stinson v. United States still accurately states the level of deference due to the Commentary of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines?
- David E. Jackson, III, Petitioner v. Indiana Parole Board
- 1. Whether a court of appeals, in denying a certificate of appealability in a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 case dismissed on procedural grounds, may rely solely on the merits formula of § 2253(c)(2) without separately determining whether jurists of reason could debate the correctness of the procedural ruling — the two-step inquiiy required by Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000), and Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003). 2. Whether a federal habeas claim is "fairly presented," and any further state remedy "unavailable," for purposes of exhaustion and procedural default, when the petitioner raised all of his federal grounds through the State's only remaining vehicle — a discretionary successive-post-conviction gateway whose denial the State's highest court will not review.
Go deeper
Sources
- Built from reviewed issue tags and official docket records. Status lines and questions presented come from the tracked case data.