Head-to-head
Eric Gomez v. David Saccoccio vs. Dennis Birkley, Petitioner v. United States, et al. vs. Price Montgomery, Petitioner v. United States
Criminal Procedure cases on the Supreme Court docket, side by side.
Relationship
- Shared issue
- Criminal Procedure
- Why compared
- Reviewed Criminal Procedure tags connect these current-term public cases.
Questions presented
- Eric Gomez v. David Saccoccio
- Whether combining general principles from two factually dissimilar cases conflicts with this Court’s precedents requiring lower courts to define rights with specificity and use close factual analogues in determining whether a Fourth Amendment constitutional right is clearly established.
- 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?
- Price Montgomery, Petitioner v. United States
- 1. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 1512(a)(1)(C), which criminalizes killing a person with intent to prevent them from telling authorities about a federal crime, necessarily involves murder, as the Third Circuit found, or whether it can also be committed through manslaughter, as the statute explicitly contemplates. 2. Even if § 1512(a)(1)(C) necessarily involves murder, whether charging and convicting someone of second-degree murder—which carries no mandatory minimum—but then sentencing them for first-degree murder—which carries mandatory life imprisonment—violates Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013). 3. Whether a state or local jurisdiction’s chief prosecutor may delegate authority to apply for wiretaps under Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. § 2510 et seq. (Incorporated from petition for a writ of certiorari in James Perrin v. United States, No. 25A935, permanent case number pending)?
Go deeper
Sources
- Built from reviewed issue tags and official docket records. Status lines and questions presented come from the tracked case data.