Head-to-head
Price Montgomery, Petitioner v. United States vs. Dale D. Mitchell, Jr., Petitioner v. United States vs. Zenia Chavez, 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
- 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)?
- 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?
- Zenia Chavez, Petitioner v. United States
- Whether an appeal waiver, that waives “the right to appeal the . . . sentence on any ground, including . . . term of supervision and conditions,” bars a claim that a written judgment conflicts with a sentencing judge’s oral pronouncement of the sentence imposed.
Go deeper
Sources
- Built from reviewed issue tags and official docket records. Status lines and questions presented come from the tracked case data.