Petition this week

This week, we focused on bribery that requires the Supreme Court to consider whether prisoners enjoy constitutional privacy in their HIV status, whether the death penalty defendant’s confession is informed and voluntary, and the government must prove guilty evidence.

Payne v Taslimi It involves prisoners’ claims of constitutional privacy rights to their HIV status. When prisoner Christopher Payne was lying on a bed in an open dormitory, Dr. Jalal Taslimi told Payne that he did not take HIV medication at a loud volume that other people could hear. . The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit confirmed that the District Court rejected Payne’s complaint of violating his constitutional privacy rights. The Fourth Circuit held that Payne had no reasonable expectation of privacy about his HIV status, because prison staff knew about the disease, because HIV is an “infectious disease” that can spread in prison, and because the location of the disclosure makes “ It is difficult to ensure that others will not hear it.” Payne argued in his petition that the Fourth Circuit differed from other circuit courts’ rulings on this issue, which affected thousands of prisoners.

exist Ohio v. Brinkman, The Ohio Supreme Court revoked George Brinkman’s guilty plea for murder — Brinkman has received a death sentence from a panel of three judges — and sent the case back to the court of first instance. When considering whether Brinkman’s defense was valid, the Ohio Supreme Court limited its review to Brinkman’s defense hearing. At the time, the court of first instance did not inform Brinkman that he had the right to confront the witness and let the prosecution prove him guilty beyond reasonable doubt. However, in the subsequent hearing, the court of first instance did inform Brinkman of these rights. Ohio argued in its petition that in view of the full record of Brinkman’s case, his plea is valid, and the state courts are divided on whether Brinkman’s failure of the plea hearing requires the plea to be invalid.

exist Robertson v. United States, David Robertson asked the judge to review the two elements of his bribery conviction. Robertson is the vice president of government relations for a company, and the Environmental Protection Agency blamed the pollution on a site in Alabama. As described in his petition, Drummond worked with Oliver Robinson on the advice of his lawyer to assist Robinson in participating in the community outreach program. Robinson is a part-time state legislator. He also conducts advocacy and community outreach activities through the foundation as a consultant. Partly through these efforts, the US Environmental Protection Agency abandoned regulatory actions. Robertson insisted that the payments to the Robinson Foundation were not bribes because they were not clearly linked to any official action, and Robinson’s mere expression of support did not constitute an official action. He argued that the US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit did not correctly apply the two previous Supreme Court cases to explain the bribery requirements.

These and others Petition this week as follows:

Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc. v. Sasso
21-540
problem: When the settlement of disputes inevitably depends on the patent law’s determination of the scope and validity of the claims, whether the dispute will cause substantive issues in the Federal Patent Law.

Alphabet Inc. v. Rhode Island
21-594
problem?Whether the “risk factors” disclosed in the securities filing must disclose only future risks, or whether risks have occurred in the past.

Ohio v. Brinkman
21-603
problem(1) Whether the due process clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits the review of the entire record to determine whether the guilty plea was made intentionally, wisely, and voluntarily; Strictly comply with the conflict of rights notice Boykin v. Alabama Should result in the automatic revocation of the confession.

Robertson v. United States
21-605
problem: (1) In a bribery prosecution based on the problem of propagating payment, otherwise it will enjoy the protection of the First Amendment. Does the government have to prove that the payment is clearly related to official actions; (2) Is it necessary to instruct the jury to “express support” only The policy cannot support a conviction under the Federal Bribery Act.

Payne v Taslimi
21-617
problem: Do prisoners enjoy constitutional privacy rights under their HIV status, as determined by the US Court of Appeals for the Second, Third, and Sixth Circuits (subject to legitimate criminal interests), or whether they have no such rights, as in the United States The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled on the case.